Reporting plans de production

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds valuable behavioral details: that startDate/endDate are required by the API, that state/type filters use integer IDs from boond_application_dictionary, and that the default scope is all authorized perimeter when no perimeter filter is applied. These are not redundant 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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose and critical requirement (startDate/endDate). The 'Returns: Données de reporting' line is somewhat redundant but not harmful. Minor issues like referencing 'period' not in the schema prevent a perfect score.

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 complex 23-parameter tool, the description provides a useful high-level overview but omits details about the return structure (no output schema exists) and pagination/caching options. It is adequate for selection but leaves the agent to rely on the schema for operational specifics.

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 provides 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description only groups parameters at a high level (périmètre, période, etc.) without adding new syntax or semantics. It even mentions a 'period' parameter that is not actually present in the schema, which could cause minor confusion.

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 it provides 'Reporting des plans de production (disponibilités, positionnements...)' with a specific resource and subject matter, distinguishing it from sibling reporting tools like boond_reporting_resources or boond_reporting_synthesis. The verb is implied but obvious in context (provides reporting), and the scope is explicit.

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 clear context: it requires startDate/endDate, lists key filter groups, and explains the default behavior when no perimeter filter is set ('Sans filtre de périmètre, le reporting porte sur tout le périmètre autorisé'). However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling reporting tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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