Rechercher des factures

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond 'recherche' which aligns with annotations. Given the rich annotations, no contradiction exists and the bar is lower, but the description adds nothing beyond what annotations convey.

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?

Single concise sentence in French that states the purpose efficiently. Minimal waste, appropriately short. It lacks structured guidance but doesn't pad with irrelevant content.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values. Annotations cover safety. However, for a tool with 9 optional parameters, the description provides little orienting guidance on how filters combine (e.g., AND semantics) or whether startDate/endDate are required together. The schema and annotations reasonably cover basics, but the description is thin for a moderately complex 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 9 parameters. The description mentions filters by company, project, and period, which loosely maps to companyId, projectId, and period/startDate/endDate. It adds a high-level framing but provides no detail beyond what the schema already specifies.

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?

Description states it searches invoices in BoondManager with filters by company, project, and period. It's French-redundant with the title and generic in scope beyond mentioning the three filter dimensions. It does not differentiate from siblings like boond_orders_search or boond_provider_invoices_search, which also share the search pattern.

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?

No guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives. Among many similar search tools in the sibling list, there's no mention of when this tool is appropriate versus boond_payments_search, boond_orders_search, or boond_provider_invoices_search. The description simply says what it does, not when to choose it.

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