Rechercher des bons de commande

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, which cover safety and idempotency. The description adds pagination behavior and return type but does not elaborate on rate limits, authentication, or error handling beyond what annotations provide.

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 concise with a clear structure: a one-sentence purpose, an Args block, and a Returns line. It avoids redundancy and is efficiently organized, though it could be slightly more compact.

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?

For a search tool with 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, filters, pagination, and return type. It lacks details on sorting, default behavior, or error scenarios, but overall is complete enough for typical use.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 5 parameters. The description merely restates parameter names and types (keywords, companyId, projectId, page, pageSize) without adding significant new meaning beyond the schema.

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 purchase orders in BoondManager with filters by company and project. It uses a specific verb ('Recherche') and resource ('bons de commande'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like boond_orders_get (retrieve single order) and boond_orders_create/delete/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 lists available filters and pagination parameters, implying when to use the tool (searching with filters). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like boond_orders_get, nor does it provide 'when not to use' guidance.

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