pdf_facture

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 the return shape (base64 payload plus filename) and a precondition (drafts have no PDF), which is real behavioral value. It omits any mention of permissions, error behavior, or size/latency considerations.

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 compact sentences with zero waste; the resource and return format are front-loaded, and the draft caveat follows efficiently.

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 PDF-retrieval tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the return format and the draft limitation, but leaves the 'dossier' parameter and any failure modes unexplained, so it is only minimally 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 clarifies facture_id as 'son numéro dans le compte' (the invoice number within the account), but the 'dossier' parameter is never mentioned, leaving half the parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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: retrieving the Factur-X PDF of an issued invoice, returned as base64 with its filename. This distinguishes it from sibling read tools like facture/factures, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.

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 clause 'Un brouillon n'a pas de PDF' gives an implicit when-not condition (drafts cannot be retrieved), which is genuinely useful. However, it offers no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over the sibling 'facture' tool, leaving usage largely inferred.

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