Factures fournisseur d'une société

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the tool returns a list, but does not disclose additional behavior such as pagination, sorting, or access requirements. It does not contradict annotations, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 concise and front-loaded: a one-sentence purpose, a clear Args block, and a Returns statement. Every sentence is necessary and there is no redundancy or 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 simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides enough information: it states the input, the purpose, and the return type. It could mention response field structure or pagination, but given the low complexity and good annotations, it is largely complete.

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% and the only parameter 'id' is well described in the schema as 'Identifiant unique de l'entité BoondManager (numérique)'. The description merely repeats 'ID de la société' without adding extra meaning, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 a clear verb 'Récupère' (retrieves) with a specific resource 'factures fournisseur d'une société' (supplier invoices of a company), making the tool's purpose evident. It is distinct enough from siblings like boond_companies_invoices or boond_provider_invoices_search by virtue of the resource name, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself.

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 description implies usage: when you have a company ID and need its supplier invoices. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like boond_provider_invoices_search or boond_companies_invoices, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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