Achats/sous-traitance d'un projet

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds only that it returns a list, without disclosing behaviors like whether subcontracting is included, pagination, or authentication requirements. It is consistent with 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 concise and structured with an Args/Returns format. Every sentence serves a purpose. A minor inconsistency between the tool's stated scope ('achats et sous-traitance') and the return value ('Liste des achats') prevents a perfect score.

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, single-parameter tool with strong annotations, the description adequately covers purpose, input, and output. It lacks additional context such as pagination or clarification of whether subcontracting is included in the returned list, but overall it is sufficient for a basic retrieval tool.

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 a generic description of id as 'Identifiant unique de l'entité BoondManager (numérique)'. The description adds project-specific meaning by calling it 'ID du projet', which helps agents understand the parameter's role beyond the schema. No further syntax or formatting details are provided.

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 uses a specific verb ('Récupère') and resource ('achats et sous-traitance associés à un projet'), clearly indicating it retrieves project-related purchases. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like boond_projects_orders or boond_purchases_search, and the return value mentions only 'achats' despite the title including 'sous-traitance'.

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. It only implies the context through 'associés à un projet' but does not mention any exclusions, alternatives, or typical scenarios.

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