Rechercher des factures fournisseur

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds minimal value beyond stating the return type ('Liste des factures'). It does not discuss pagination behavior, sorting, or how the search query is interpreted. With annotations covering core behavioral traits, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 very short (two sentences) and front-loaded with the primary action. However, the second sentence ('Returns: Liste des factures fournisseur correspondantes.') is redundant with the first and adds no new information. Removing it would improve conciseness, but overall it is not verbose.

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 that there is no output schema, the description should explain what the returned list contains (e.g., fields, structure) and how the search works (e.g., keyword matching, pagination details). The current description only states it returns a list, which is insufficient for a search tool with 4 parameters. The agent may not know how to interpret results or use pagination effectively.

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%: all four parameters have descriptions in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It does not explain how parameters interact or provide usage examples. The schema carries the full burden, so baseline 3.

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 'Recherche' and the resource 'factures fournisseur' in BoondManager. The tool name includes 'search', which naturally differentiates from 'get' siblings like 'boond_provider_invoices_get'. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from other search tools or mention any scope limitations.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when not to use it, prerequisites, or any comparison with similar tools like 'boond_companies_provider_invoices' or 'boond_invoices_search'. The agent receives no decision support.

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