get_thirdparty_proposals

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full transparency burden. It merely states the action and scope; it does not disclose whether drafts/validated proposals are included, pagination behavior, or permission requirements. This is minimal behavioral disclosure.

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, concise French sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the action and object clearly, achieving maximum economy.

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 one-parameter list tool without output schema, the description covers the core purpose and required input. It does not mention return format or filtering nuances, but the tool name and description imply a list of proposals, which is largely sufficient.

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 already describes the sole parameter 'id' as 'ID du tiers', and the description echoes this without adding extra meaning. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 active verb 'Lister' (list) with a specific resource 'devis/propositions d'un tiers', clearly identifying the operation. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_proposals (general list) and get_proposal (single proposal) by specifying the third-party scope.

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 phrase 'd'un tiers' provides clear context that this is for all proposals associated with a given third party. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it lacks the explicit when/when-not guidance needed for a 5.

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