Rechercher des factures fournisseur

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, which covers the safety profile well. The description adds nothing beyond the basic purpose. With strong annotations, the bar is lower and the description meets the minimum by not contradicting them, but it doesn't add behavioral context like pagination limits or result format.

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?

One concise sentence, zero waste. Efficiently states purpose without unnecessary elaboration. However, given 6 parameters and a search operation, a bit more guidance would be warranted while remaining concise.

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 search tool with 6 parameters, no output schema, and complex sibling landscape (provider invoices vs client invoices vs purchases), the description is minimal. It doesn't mention return format, pagination behavior, or what distinguishes provider invoice search from other invoice/purchase search tools. The 100% schema coverage and annotations help, but for a parameter-heavy search tool with many ambiguous siblings, more context is needed.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all 6 parameters have descriptions in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond 'search provider invoices' which doesn't clarify any specific parameter behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema does the heavy lifting, but the resourceId param (via COMP<id>) has a somewhat cryptic schema description that the tool description doesn't clarify.

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 states the tool searches provider invoices in BoondManager, which is a specific verb+resource (research provider invoices). However, it's quite generic and doesn't distinguish it from the many sibling search tools (boond_invoices_search, boond_purchases_search, boond_payments_search) — the 'fournisseur' (provider) qualifier is the main differentiator, but it could be clearer about what distinguishes provider invoices from 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs boond_invoices_search (client invoices) or boond_companies_provider_invoices. Schema descriptions indicate filters (companyId, resourceId, keywords) but no context on use cases or when NOT to use it. The description provides no usage direction beyond the one-line statement.

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