Rechercher des notes de frais

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool's non-destructive nature is known. The description adds that it returns a list of expense reports, which is helpful but does not delve into details like pagination behavior or response structure beyond what the output schema provides.

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 with a one-sentence overview, an argument list, and a return line. No unnecessary text, though the argument list could be omitted since the schema already provides full details.

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 (7 optional parameters, output schema present), the description covers the purpose, main filters, and return type. It does not explain output fields, but the output schema handles that. Pagination is implied through parameters, which is sufficient for a search tool.

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 description merely lists parameter names with brief labels similar to the schema. It adds minimal extra meaning, such as grouping resourceId and projectId as 'Filtrer par entité liée', but largely duplicates 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 clearly states 'Recherche des notes de frais', specifying the verb (search) and resource (expense reports). The tool name and title align perfectly, and the description distinguishes it from other search tools in the sibling list by focusing on expenses.

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 indicates filters for resource, project, and period, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like boond_expenses_get or other entity searches. No guidance on exclusions or preferred contexts is given.

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