Rechercher des factures

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds that the tool returns a list of invoices, which is consistent with read-only behavior. No contradictions, and the description adds minor behavioral context beyond 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 succinct, using a clear opening sentence followed by a bulleted parameter list and a one-line return statement. Every sentence is 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 8 optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately describes the tool's purpose and parameters. However, it does not specify the return structure in detail (e.g., fields included) or behavior with all parameters omitted, but this is acceptable for a read-only 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%, so baseline is 3. The description lists parameters but does not add new meaning beyond what the schema already describes (e.g., keywords, dates, pagination). It merely restates the parameter names and types.

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 invoices in BoondManager with filters by company, project, and period. It distinguishes this tool from sibling invoice tools (create, delete, get, update) and other search tools by specifying the resource and the filtering capabilities.

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 by listing filters, but it does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like boond_companies_invoices or boond_invoices_get. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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