Achats d'un projet

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating it returns a list of purchases charged to the project and explicitly notes 'Lecture seule', which reinforces the read-only nature.

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 compact and well-structured with labeled sections: the core action, when to use it, alternatives, and the return type. Every sentence adds value and the key scoping 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?

For a simple one-parameter read-only fetch with no output schema, the description provides the essential context: what it returns, when to use it, and how it differs from siblings. It does not describe pagination or response field formatting, but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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%, so the single parameter is already fully documented as a numeric BoondManager entity ID. The description only repeats 'par son ID' without adding new semantic detail, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Récupère les achats et la sous-traitance d'un(e) projet, par son ID.' It also explicitly names sibling alternatives and states what this tool does not do, making it easily distinguishable from boond_projects_get and boond_projects_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?

'Quand : pour ne charger que cette section, sans le reste de la fiche' directly states when to use it. It also names the alternatives: boond_projects_get for the base record and boond_projects_search when the ID is unknown, giving the agent explicit routing guidance.

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