marge_chantier

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the calculation method (invoiced revenue minus expenses) and the required permissions, which are key behavioral details. It does not mention return format or error behavior, but the formula and permission requirement provide substantial transparency for a simple read/calculation tool.

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?

Two short sentences, both informative: the first defines the calculation, the second states the permission requirement. No redundant or filler content. Information is front-loaded with the purpose immediately.

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 one-parameter calculation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers the core purpose, calculation, and permission precondition. It could optionally specify the return format (e.g., currency), but the overall context is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The schema has one parameter, chantier_id, with 0% coverage in the description. The description does not explain what chantier_id represents or how to provide it, relying entirely on the parameter name and tool name for inference. Since schema coverage is low, the description should compensate but does not.

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?

The description clearly defines the tool as computing the margin of a job site, with an explicit formula ('chiffre d'affaires facturé moins les dépenses'). This specific verb+resource+definition distinguishes it from siblings like factures, depenses, and chantiers, which are list/creation tools.

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?

The description gives clear context for when to use the tool: to obtain a margin for a chantier. It also states a prerequisite (permissions for factures and dépenses). While it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the tool's uniqueness and the provided formula make its intended usage unambiguous.

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