Rechercher des notes de frais

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, which already indicate safe, read-only behavior. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond return type; 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 very concise: one sentence for purpose, a bullet-style list of arguments, and a return statement. All sentences are necessary and 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?

Given the tool is a search with 7 optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return is a list of matching expenses. It could mention default pagination or sorting, but the annotations (readOnly, idempotent) cover safety.

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 for all 7 parameters. The description restates parameters in a grouped list (keywords, resourceId/projectId, startDate/endDate, page/pageSize) but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 searches for expense notes with filters by resource, project, and period. The verb 'Rechercher' and specific resource 'notes de frais' make the purpose unambiguous, distinguishing it from other expense tools like create, delete, get, update.

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 for searching expenses with filters, but does not explicitly specify when to use this tool over siblings like boond_expenses_get (for a single expense) or when not to use it. However, the context is clear from the tool name and description.

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