Détails d'un(e) facture

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds only that it retrieves 'detailed information', which is a minor addition beyond the annotations. No additional behavioral context (e.g., error behavior, pagination, or response format) is provided, but none is strictly necessary given the simple read-only nature.

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, concise sentence in French, front-loaded with the action and resource. There is no redundant information or filler. It earns its place by succinctly communicating the tool's purpose.

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 simplicity (one required parameter, full schema, clear annotations), the description is nearly complete. It clarifies the input (by ID) and the output type (detailed information). However, since there is no output schema, the description could be slightly richer about what 'detailed information' includes, but this is a minor gap for a straightforward get-by-ID operation.

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 description covers 100% of the parameter, describing 'id' as the unique numeric identifier of the BoondManager entity. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides. According to the rubric, high schema coverage means a baseline of 3, and the description does not compensate with extra context.

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 informations détaillées d'un(e) facture par son ID' (retrieves detailed invoice information by ID). It specifies a concrete verb ('récupère'), a clear resource ('facture'), and the lookup mechanism ('par son ID'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like boond_invoices_search (which searches) and boond_invoices_create/update/delete.

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 implicitly conveys usage: when you have an invoice ID and need detailed information, use this tool. It clearly indicates the required input ('par son ID') and the purpose. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives such as boond_invoices_search, so it lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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