Reporting sociétés

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds the requirement for date parameters and the return of reporting data, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits or data freshness. Given comprehensive annotations, the description adds moderate 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, front-loaded with the purpose, and uses a clear list for arguments. It is efficient without unnecessary words, though the use of emojis and mixed formatting slightly reduces clarity.

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 covers required parameters and pagination, and hints at return data (CA, marge, activité). However, with no output schema, it lacks detailed return structure or field explanations. For a simple query tool, completeness is adequate but could be improved.

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% with descriptions for all 5 parameters. The description summarizes parameter purposes (e.g., 'Termes de recherche' for keywords) but adds minimal new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline set at 3 as per guidelines for high coverage.

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 company reporting (CA, marge, activité), using a specific verb 'Recherche' and resource 'reporting des sociétés'. It distinguishes itself from sibling reporting tools like boond_reporting_production_plans and boond_reporting_synthesis by focusing on 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 explicitly requires startDate and endDate in YYYY-MM-DD format, and mentions pagination parameters. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other reporting tools or when not to use it. Usage context is implied but exclusions and alternatives are missing.

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