Reporting plans de production

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 that startDate and endDate are required and mentions pagination, but does not elaborate on behavioral aspects like rate limits, data consistency, or how results are ordered. It repeats what annotations imply about non-destructiveness without contradiction.

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 succinct with only 5 lines, using a warning icon and clear 'Args:' section to separate parameter details. The structure is efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose. Minor deduction: the formatting with bullet points could be tighter, but overall it is well-organized and wastes no words.

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 no output schema, the description bears the burden of explaining return values, but only says 'Returns: Données de reporting.' This is vague and insufficient for an AI agent to understand the structure or content of the reporting data. The tool is a read-only search, so completeness should cover what fields are returned, which is missing.

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 all 5 parameters with 100% coverage, including descriptions, patterns, defaults, and required status. The description restates these details (e.g., 'startDate, endDate (string, requis): YYYY-MM-DD') without adding new semantics or usage nuances beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 reporting of production plans ('Recherche le reporting des plans de production'). The title reinforces this. Among sibling reporting tools (e.g., boond_reporting_companies, boond_reporting_resources), this one is uniquely identified by targeting production plans.

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 emphasizes that startDate and endDate are required by the API, which is a key usage constraint. However, it provides no guidance on when to prefer this tool over sibling reporting tools (e.g., boond_reporting_companies) or when not to use it. Usage is implied by the resource name but not explicitly differentiated.

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