recap_tva

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure; it does state the required accounting permission and the output summary fields, which adds value. However, it does not say whether the operation is read-only, whether it has side effects, or any rate/limit behavior, leaving significant gaps.

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 no filler; the core function is front-loaded immediately.

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 tool with three parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, the description is incomplete: it omits parameter details, usage alternatives, and return structure beyond naming the three VAT amounts.

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 explain the three parameters. It only supplies the date format for the period and never mentions the optional dossier parameter or why debut/fin are required, leaving most parameter semantics undocumented.

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: 'Récapitulatif TVA sur une période' and lists the three computed amounts (collectée, déductible, TVA nette). It does not explicitly distinguish this recap from sibling journal or expense tools, so it falls short of 5.

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 only usage context is the prerequisite 'Nécessite la permission comptabilité' and the date format. There is no guidance on when to choose this recap versus journal_ventes, journal_achats, or other sibling tools, nor any exclusions.

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