Details d'une facture fournisseur

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 known. The description adds 'detailed information' but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as not-found behavior or response shape. No contradiction.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. It is efficient and contains no extraneous words, earning its place perfectly.

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, strong annotations, and no output schema, the description is sufficient. It communicates the purpose and input clearly, and the lack of return-value details is acceptable 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?

The schema provides full coverage with a clear description for the 'id' parameter (unique numeric identifier). The description adds no extra semantics beyond restating 'par son ID', which matches the schema. Baseline 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 verb (récupère) and resource (facture fournisseur) and specifies the retrieval method (par son ID). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like boond_provider_invoices_search and boond_provider_invoices_create.

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 use for fetching a single supplier invoice by ID, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention the search/create siblings. No exclusion criteria are provided, but the ID-based lookup is clear context.

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