factures

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Liste' implies a read-only operation, but the description says nothing about pagination behavior despite a 'limit' parameter defaulting to 50, nor about ordering, result size, or permissions - significant gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 well-formed sentence with the listing purpose front-loaded and filters in a trailing clause; there is no wasted verbiage. The parenthetical clarifications add value without bloat.

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?

With six parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description covers the core operation and several filters but leaves 'dossier' and 'limit' unexplained and gives no sense of the return shape. It is adequate but not complete for a tool of this complexity.

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, and it partially does: it clarifies that chantier_id is the site number within the account and that debut/fin use AAAA-MM-JJ format and are inclusive. However, it omits any explanation of 'dossier' and 'limit', leaving two of six parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Liste les factures émises') and scopes it to issued invoices, so an agent immediately knows this retrieves a collection. However, it does not differentiate from close siblings such as 'facture' (singular) or 'factures_impayees', leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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?

It indicates that filtering by statut, chantier, or emission period is possible, which implies the usage context. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of the alternative tools (facture for a single record, factures_impayees for unpaid ones), so the routing decision is left implicit.

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