note_frais

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the POST method and the expected line-item structure, which is useful, but it does not state the operation's side effects, authorization needs, or what response the agent can expect after creating the note de frais.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: it gives the trigger condition first, then the app, endpoint, and payload shape. It could be clearer with a proper verb, but every fragment contributes useful information.

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 POST-based document creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits what the API returns, how the 'justificatif' should be passed, whether any required nested line fields must be validated, and any prerequisites or failure behavior. The line-item object is undefined in the schema, so the informal field list is insufficient for fully reliable invocation.

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 100% for the six top-level parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra value by naming line-item fields (date, libelle, montant, mission, justificatif), which the schema's generic 'object' items do not define, thus partially compensating for the missing nested structure.

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 identifies a clear use case (professional expenses to be reimbursed or justified) and names the resource 'Note de frais' with its endpoint POST /api/v1/documents/note-frais. It is understandable and actionable, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from related siblings like journal_kilometrique or facture_facturx.

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 opening 'QUAND des frais professionnels doivent être remboursés ou justifiés' gives a clear trigger condition for choosing this tool. It does not list exclusions or alternative tools, but the when-condition is explicit enough to guide selection.

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