Factures fournisseur d'une société

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's safe. The description adds that the tool returns a list of invoices, which is expected but useful. 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: two sentences covering purpose and parameters. Every sentence adds value, and the information is front-loaded.

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 retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description completely covers the necessary context: what it does, what input is required, and what kind of output to expect.

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 coverage is 100% for the only parameter 'id', with schema description 'Identifiant unique de l'entité BoondManager'. The tool description clarifies that it is 'ID de la société' (company ID), adding specificity beyond the schema's generic 'entity' wording.

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 the verb 'Récupère' (retrieve) and resource 'factures fournisseur d'une société' (supplier invoices of a company). However, it does not differentiate from related sibling tools like 'boond_companies_invoices' or 'boond_provider_invoices_get', though the name itself is highly specific.

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 such as 'boond_provider_invoices_get' (likely for a single invoice) or 'boond_provider_invoices_search' (for searching). The description only states what it does.

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