Bons de commande d'un projet

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, and the description is consistent. However, it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination, ordering, or error handling, providing minimal transparency beyond the structured 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 concise and well-structured with explicit Args and Returns sections. It contains no fluff, though it is minimal and could include slightly more context without becoming lengthy.

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 simple read-only retrieval with one parameter, the description provides the purpose, parameter, and return type. It does not mention edge cases or output details, but the tool's simplicity and existing annotations make it adequately complete.

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?

The input schema fully documents the 'id' parameter with a pattern and description. The description's 'ID du projet' is less detailed than the schema, so it adds no new meaning. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's function: retrieving purchase orders (bons de commande) associated with a specific project. The verb 'Récupère' is specific and the resource is well-defined, distinguishing it from generic order search tools.

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 usage is implied: given a project ID, fetch its purchase orders. However, the description does not explicitly mention alternatives like boond_orders_search or provide when-not-to-use guidance, so it relies on the reader to infer the appropriate context.

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