Références de saisie d'une note de frais

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the returned data nature, the per-agency definition of expense types, and the constraint that the API rejects non-imputable pairs. It does not contradict 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 concise yet comprehensive, with a clear purpose statement, usage guidance, argument list, and return summary. Every sentence adds value, and it is well-structured with bold highlights for key terms.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (multiple reference types, constraints, and no output schema), the description covers all necessary context: what it returns, when to use it, important constraints, and how the result should be used in boond_expenses_create. It is complete for an agent to use correctly.

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% with descriptions, but the description adds nuance: it clarifies agencyId is optional and forces the agency, and explains the role of term in determining imputability. It also ties the parameters to the function purpose beyond the schema.

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 it returns the necessary references for entering an expense note, listing the specific data (agency, currency, expense types, mileage scales, imputable pairs). It explicitly distinguishes itself from boond_expenses_create by being a prerequisite retrieval tool.

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 explicitly instructs to call this BEFORE boond_expenses_create, explains why (types are per agency, not in application_dictionary), and warns about the mandatory projectId/deliveryId and API rejection of non-imputable pairs. This provides clear when-to-use and why.

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