journal_ventes

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 two valuable traits: the required accounting permission and the fact that the output contains one entry per invoice and credit note. It does not confirm read-only behavior, pagination, or volume limits, which is a notable gap for a report 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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the resource and scope, then adds granularity and the permission prerequisite. No filler, though the sentence could have been split for easier scanning of the permission requirement.

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 three-parameter reporting tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essentials of scope, date format, output granularity, and auth. It leaves the optional dossier parameter and the distinction from the CSV sibling unaddressed, so it is adequate but not 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 supplies the date format (AAAA-MM-JJ) for debut and fin, covering two of three parameters, but the optional 'dossier' parameter is undocumented in both the schema and the description, leaving its meaning and effect unexplained.

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 names a specific resource (Journal des ventes) with an explicit scope (une période) and output granularity (une écriture par facture et avoir), which clearly distinguishes it from a generic report tool. It does not, however, mention the closest sibling journal_ventes_csv, so the agent must infer the difference between the two.

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 implied by the period scope and the stated prerequisite 'Nécessite la permission comptabilité', which is genuinely useful gating information. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over journal_ventes_csv or journal_achats, and no exclusions, so guidance remains inferential.

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