Factures d'une société

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds that it returns a list of invoices, which is helpful but lacks additional behavioral traits such as pagination or authentication requirements. No contradiction with annotations.

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 extremely concise, with no superfluous content. It front-loads the purpose and lists the argument and return value in a structured format. Every sentence is earned.

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 read-only tool with one parameter and full schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. It lacks information on potential pagination or response structure, but this is partially mitigated by annotations and the simplicity of the tool.

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 input schema provides a complete description of the single parameter (id) with 100% coverage. The description briefly restates the parameter's purpose, but does not add extra meaning beyond the schema's documentation.

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 clearly states it retrieves invoices of a company with the verb 'Récupère' and resource 'factures d'une société'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like boond_invoices_get, which might retrieve a single invoice, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that the id must correspond to a company or when to prefer this over other invoice-related tools like boond_companies_provider_invoices.

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