Rechercher des achats/sous-traitance

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

The description does not add behavioral details beyond what the annotations already provide (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true). It merely states the return type, which is already implied. No contradictions, but no extra value.

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 short and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a structured list of arguments and return type. No unnecessary sentences; each part serves a clear purpose.

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?

The description lacks output schema details, only stating 'Returns: Liste des achats correspondants' without specifying fields or structure. Given 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient for a complete understanding of the tool's behavior and results.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes all parameters. The description adds a brief grouping ('Filters', 'Pagination') and lists them, but this is minimal extra meaning. Baseline 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 tool searches for purchases and subcontracting in BoondManager. It uses a specific verb ('Recherche') and resource ('achats et sous-traitances'), distinguishing it from other search tools targeting different entities (e.g., accounts, companies).

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as boond_companies_purchases or boond_projects_purchases, which could be more specific. No conditions or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent without decision support.

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