Factures fournisseur d'une société

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds that it returns a list (Liste), but does not elaborate on pagination, limits, or other behaviors. Given the annotations, the description contributes minimally, resulting in an adequate score.

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: one sentence plus structured Args/Returns. Every word is necessary. No fluff, and the structure is clear and front-loaded. It earns the highest score.

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 is nearly complete. It specifies the input and that the return is a list. While it could optionally describe the list structure or mention that it returns all provider invoices for the company, the current description is sufficient given the low complexity.

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 has 100% coverage: the only parameter 'id' is fully described with pattern and description. The description merely restates 'ID de la société' without adding new meaning. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and no additional value is provided.

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 tool retrieves 'provider invoices for a company' (Récupère les factures fournisseur d'une société). The name and title explicitly include 'provider invoices' and 'company', distinguishing it from sibling tools like boond_companies_invoices (for company invoices) and boond_provider_invoices_get (for a specific provider invoice). The verb and resource are 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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. However, the tool's name and context (sibling tools) imply it is for listing provider invoices for a given company. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusions, so the usage is only implied.

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