Achats 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, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that the tool returns a list of purchases, which is consistent. No contradictions. The description adds minimal additional behavioral context beyond 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: one line for purpose, followed by parameter and return descriptions. Every sentence is essential, well-structured, and front-loaded with the primary action.

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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, parameter, and return value. No gaps are apparent.

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% description coverage for the single parameter 'id', explaining it as 'Identifiant unique de l'entité BoondManager (numérique)'. The tool description restates 'ID de la société', which is helpful but does not add new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 'Récupère les achats/sous-traitance d'une société' uses a specific verb ('Récupère') and resource ('achats/sous-traitance'), clearly indicating the tool retrieves purchases for a company. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'boond_companies_get' (general company info) and 'boond_companies_invoices' (invoices).

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_companies_purchases' vs. 'boond_companies_orders' or other company-related tools. There are no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative suggestions.

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