Simulation financière d'un projet

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only and idempotent, so the description's contribution is limited to specifying the type of data returned (financial simulation). It adds useful context about the content but does not disclose further behavioral traits such as authentication needs or rate limits.

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 brief and to the point, with two clear sentences explaining purpose, one Args section, and one Returns section. Every part adds value, and it is well-structured for quick understanding.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, annotations present), the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, what parameter is needed, and what the return value contains (simulation data with margin, etc.), satisfying the agent's needs.

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 covers the single parameter 'id' with a description, and the tool description adds 'ID du projet', which is consistent. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3; the description does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 retrieves financial simulation data for a project, listing specific fields like margin, revenue, costs, and profitability. It uses a specific verb 'récupère' and resource 'simulation financière d'un projet', distinguishing it from sibling tools like boond_projects_get (general project info) and boond_projects_information (other info).

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 the tool is for retrieving financial simulations but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. No exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools are provided, so the usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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