Factures d'un contact

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 covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the simple retrieval action, such as pagination or empty-list behavior, but it does not 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 compact, with a single sentence and a structured Args/Returns breakdown. Every word is useful 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 1-parameter read-only tool, the description is adequate but sparse. It states the input and a generic return type ('Liste des factures'), but lacks detail about the structure of the returned invoices, and there is no output schema to compensate. This leaves some ambiguity for the agent.

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 schema's description includes the format (numeric string). The description's Args line 'ID du contact' adds a small clarification that the ID refers to the contact, but otherwise repeats schema information.

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 specific verb 'Récupère' with the resource 'les factures' scoped to 'un contact', distinguishing it from sibling tools that retrieve other contact-associated entities like opportunities or projects. The title and description are aligned and unambiguous.

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 contact ID and need that contact's invoices, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives such as boond_invoices_search or boond_companies_invoices. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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