Bons de commande d'un projet

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds that it returns a list of orders, which is useful but minimal. No details on pagination, ordering, or error states.

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 extremely concise, with one sentence plus clear Args/Returns listing. No wasted words, and the most critical information is 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 the simplicity (single parameter, no output schema, annotations present), the description adequately covers what the tool does and how to use it. It could mention return structure or empty responses, but is sufficient for an agent with domain knowledge.

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% with description for the single parameter. The tool description restates the parameter as 'ID du projet', adding no 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 it retrieves purchase orders associated with a project. The title 'Bons de commande d'un projet' reinforces the purpose. It differentiates from sibling tools like boond_orders_get (specific order) and boond_orders_search (general search).

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 when needing orders for a project but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like boond_orders_search. No when-not or context for alternative tools.

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