journal_achats_csv

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose useful behavioral facts: CSV output, semicolon separator, comma decimals, and a required accounting permission. It still omits whether this is a read-only export, any row/volume behavior, and date-range handling.

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 terse fragments with zero filler, and the format and permission details are front-loaded. It is arguably under-specified rather than bloated, but every phrase is load-bearing.

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 3-parameter export tool with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description covers output format and permission but leaves all parameter semantics and the read-only nature undocumented. It is not complete enough for an agent to construct a correct call unaided.

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% and the description adds nothing about the three parameters. It never explains the expected format for debit/fin (the two required dates) or what dossier selects, so an agent must guess the date syntax and the meaning of dossier.

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 (purchases journal) plus the output format (CSV), which implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling journal_achats (the non-CSV variant). The verb is absent, but for an export-style tool the noun phrase is clear enough to identify what it produces.

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?

No guidance on when to choose this over journal_achats or journal_ventes_csv. The only usage-relevant hint is 'Permission comptabilité', which signals a prerequisite but not the selection conditions or alternatives.

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