get_proposal

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. The verb 'obtenir' (get) implies a read-only operation, and 'détails complets' indicates the response contains the full proposal record. However, it doesn't disclose potential error behavior (e.g., missing ID), authentication requirements, or any side effects. The description goes slightly beyond the tool name but still lacks depth.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence: 'Obtenir les détails complets d'un devis.' It contains no filler and precisely communicates the core function, making it efficient and well-structured for a simple get tool.

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 simple get-by-ID with full schema and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient: it states the action, resource, and scope. However, it does not reference the broader proposal workflow (e.g., list_proposals to find IDs, or get_thirdparty_proposals) or clarify how 'complete details' differs from other proposal representations. Given the wide sibling list, a sentence pointing to list_proposals as the discovery mechanism would improve completeness.

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?

The schema describes the only parameter 'id' with 100% coverage ('ID du devis'), and the description doesn't add additional parameter-level detail (e.g., format, required flag, or how to find the ID). Baseline 3 applies because the schema fully documents the parameter.

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 uses the specific verb 'obtenir' (get) with the resource 'devis' (proposal), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_proposals, create_proposal, or validate_proposal. The phrase 'détails complets' clarifies the scope, so an agent can differentiate this from a list or summary operation.

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?

While the description doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, the tool name get_proposal and the required 'id' parameter imply it's for fetching a single proposal. This implied usage is sufficient for an agent to select it when a proposal ID is known, but it doesn't mention alternatives like list_proposals for searching. No explicit exclusions or alternative guidance is provided.

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