journal_achats

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose a real behavioral trait (the accounting permission prerequisite) and the output granularity (une écriture par dépense), plus the date format. It does not state that it is a read-only operation, nor anything about ordering, pagination, or behavior on empty periods.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single sentence that front-loads the resource and period, followed by two compact qualifiers. No filler, though the parenthetical date format slightly interrupts the main clause.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema or annotations, the essentials are present: scope, date format, permission requirement, and row granularity. Missing details about return contents (totals? ordering? empty results?) keep it at minimum-viable rather than complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% and both parameters (debut, fin) are undocumented in the schema, so the description must compensate. It supplies the date format (AAAA-MM-JJ), which is genuinely useful, but does not clarify range inclusivity or whether fin is exclusive, leaving residual ambiguity.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Names a specific resource (journal des achats) and scope (sur une période), so an agent can immediately distinguish it from journal_ventes and export_fec, which appear in the sibling list. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides context that it is a period-bounded report and that it requires the comptabilité permission, which lets an agent decide feasibility. However, it never states when to prefer this over journal_ventes, export_fec, or depenses, so routing is left to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.