Simulation financière d'un projet

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description aligns by using 'Récupère'. The description adds context about the type of data returned (marge, CA, coûts, rentabilité) but does not disclose further behavioral traits like caching, performance, or error behavior.

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 with a clear purpose and args/returns structure. The repetition of 'simulation financière du projet' in both the purpose and returns is slightly redundant but not harmful.

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 get-by-id tool with one parameter, the description is adequate. It names the key financial metrics returned, but since there's no output schema, more detail on the return structure would improve completeness. Annotations cover the safety profile.

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 schema provides 100% coverage with a description and pattern for the id parameter. The description's 'Args: id (string): ID du projet' adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema's 'Identifiant unique de l'entité BoondManager (numérique)'. So baseline 3 applies.

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 that the tool retrieves a project's financial simulation with specific metrics (margin, revenue, costs, profitability). This specific verb-resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like boond_projects_productivity or boond_opportunities_simulation.

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 you need a project's financial simulation, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this over alternatives or any exclusions. There's no mention of prerequisites or context.

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