encaissements

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 genuine behavioral trait – the required permission ('Permission encaissements') – and reveals the return shape including the 'moyen' enum values (carte, virement, déclaré). However it never states that this is a read-only listing, nor how the 'limit' behaves (default 100 is only in the schema).

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 front-loaded sentence with a colon-delimited field list and a trailing permission clause; no padding. It is dense but every element is informative.

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 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does cover the purpose, date format, return fields, and permission. But the dossier/limit parameters and the pagination behavior are missing, leaving the definition only partially 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It usefully gives the date format (AAAA-MM-JJ) covering debut/fin, but the 'dossier' and 'limit' parameters are entirely undocumented anywhere. Half the parameters are left opaque.

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 resource and scope: 'Factures encaissées sur une période' (invoices collected over a period), and enumerates the returned fields (facture, date, montant, moyen). This clearly separates it from siblings like factures_impayees and factures. It does not, however, explicitly name those siblings to sharpen the distinction.

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 phrase 'sur une période' implies a date-range retrieval, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer this over factures_impayees or journal_ventes, and no prerequisites stated. The agent gets no routing help.

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