Rechercher des factures

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what is implied by the annotations, such as pagination behavior or authorization requirements. It does not contradict the 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 a single, clear sentence that is front-loaded and free of unnecessary information. It effectively communicates the tool's purpose without fluff.

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 rich schema and annotations, the description is minimally viable but lacks any guidance on usage scenarios or differentiation from sibling tools. The presence of an output schema and annotations relieves the description of explaining return values or safety, but it does not leverage the opportunity to add strategic context.

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 all parameters are documented. The description's mention of filters (societe, projet, periode) aligns with schema parameters but adds no additional semantic value 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 invoices ('Recherche des factures') and identifies key filters (company, project, period). It is concise and uses a specific verb, but does not distinguish itself from similar invoice-related tools like boond_companies_invoices or boond_invoices_get.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to use boond_invoices_get for a specific invoice or boond_companies_invoices for company-specific invoices. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are mentioned.

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