Détails d'un(e) note de frais

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read. The description adds the word 'detailed' but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as response shape or potential errors. It doesn't contradict annotations, but adds minimal value beyond them.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's function. No filler or repeated information.

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 simplicity of a get-by-ID operation, the one-sentence description is adequate. It benefits from strong annotations and full parameter documentation. However, it doesn't describe what 'detailed information' includes or the return format, which would be more critical if there were no output schema; still, it's enough for an experienced 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?

The schema covers 100% of the parameter (id) with a clear description and pattern. The description does not add any additional parameter-level semantics beyond what is already in 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 uses the specific verb 'Récupère' (retrieves) with a clear resource ('note de frais') and specifies the identifier ('par son ID'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like boond_expenses_search, which target lists rather than a single entity.

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 provides clear context: this tool fetches a single expense report by ID. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives like boond_expenses_search, but the 'by ID' qualifier clearly differentiates this from search operations. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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