Reporting sociétés

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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds value by flagging the API requirement for startDate/endDate, noting that state/type IDs come from boond_application_dictionary, and clarifying the default perimeter behavior. No contradiction 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 compact and well-structured: it opens with the tool's purpose, follows with a required-parameter warning in bold, then lists key filters and a behavioral note. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without unnecessary repetition.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the return description is merely 'Données de reporting' without specifics. Given the tool's high complexity (19 parameters), the description would benefit from explaining result structure, pagination, or the interaction between period and periodDynamic, leaving gaps beyond what the schema already documents.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond this by highlighting key filter groups (perimeter, period, companiesStates, companies, maxCompanies, showPercentage) and adding the dictionary source note for integer IDs, which enriches parameter understanding.

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 provides reporting for companies, mentioning specific metrics (CA, marge, activité). It distinguishes itself from sibling reporting tools (e.g., boond_reporting_projects, boond_reporting_resources) by explicitly focusing on the 'sociétés' (companies) scope.

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 gives useful context: it warns that startDate/endDate are required and explains that without a perimeter filter, the report covers the entire authorized scope. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus the other reporting tools, nor does it provide exclusions or alternative suggestions.

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