Bons de commande 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, covering the safety profile. The description adds only that it returns a list of orders, which is basic but does not disclose pagination, ordering, or potential errors. This is adequate but not rich behavioral context.

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 and front-loaded. It states the purpose in one sentence, then lists the parameter and return type in a structured format. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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, no output schema, and strong safety annotations, the description is largely complete. It clearly specifies the input and the high-level return (a list of orders), though it omits any detail about the structure of the returned list or edge cases. Given the low complexity, this is sufficient.

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%: the single 'id' parameter is described with its numeric pattern and purpose. The description's inclusion of 'id (string): ID du contact' adds no new meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's function: 'Récupère les bons de commande associés à un contact' (Retrieves the purchase orders associated with a contact). It uses a specific verb (récupère) and resource (bons de commande / orders) and distinguishes itself from sibling contact-related tools like actions, opportunities, projects, and 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?

The context is clear: use this tool when you need to retrieve purchase orders for a specific contact. No explicit exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, but the narrow scope and naming pattern (including sibling tools) make the use case obvious without further guidance.

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