Détails d'une facture fournisseur

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds that it returns 'detailed information', which is useful context. No contradictions with 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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word is necessary, with no extraneous information.

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 low complexity (1 parameter), rich annotations, and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose and input. It could explicitly mention that it returns a single provider invoice object, but it's largely implied by 'informations détaillées d'une facture fournisseur'.

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 has 100% coverage, with parameter 'id' described as 'Identifiant unique de l'entité BoondManager'. The tool description repeats the usage of ID ('par son ID') but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score 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 it retrieves detailed information of a provider invoice by ID, using a specific verb ('récupère') and resource ('facture fournisseur'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like boond_provider_invoices_search (listing/search) and boond_invoices_get (likely client invoices).

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 when needing details of a specific provider invoice by ID, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like boond_provider_invoices_search for listing. No when-not-to or prerequisite information is provided.

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