Bons de commande d'une société

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

Annotations already declare this as safe, read-only, and idempotent. The description adds that the return value is a list of purchase orders, which is not covered by the schema or annotations. It doesn't contradict the 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 three short lines: a main sentence, an Args block, and a Returns line. It's front-loaded and contains no fluff.

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 one-parameter read-only listing tool, the description provides the essential purpose and return type. No output schema exists, so the 'Returns' line is valuable. It may lack pagination details, but that's acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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 already fully documents the 'id' parameter with a description and regex pattern (100% coverage). The description's 'Args' section merely restates 'ID de la société' without adding extra semantic value beyond the schema.

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 purchase orders for a specific company, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like boond_contacts_orders or boond_orders_search by scoping to a company.

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 tool's context is clear: it is intended to retrieve orders for a given company ID. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the company-specific scoping provides clear guidance.

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