clients

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does very little: it implies a read-only listing but says nothing about permissions, result volume, pagination, or what 'dossier' scoping does. Only the fact that search is optional and textual is disclosed.

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 short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than disciplined concision.

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 two-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is too thin: it leaves the 'dossier' filter and the shape of the returned client list entirely unexplained.

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 description coverage is 0% for both parameters. The description explains 'recherche' as an optional text search, which adds some meaning, but the 'dossier' parameter is never mentioned in the description or schema, leaving half the inputs undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Liste les clients') and adds the optional text-search scope, so an agent can distinguish it from the facture/depense/journal siblings at a glance. It does not explicitly differentiate from a hypothetical filtered-client sibling, but the sibling list contains no competing client tool.

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?

Usage is only implied: listing clients with an optional text filter. There is no statement of when to prefer it, when not to use it, or which alternative to reach for, so the agent must infer context.

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