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. The description adds context about required date parameters, perimeter default behavior, and that filters like resourceTypes use integer IDs from a dictionary. It does not delve into side effects or detailed output behavior, but it does not contradict 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 relatively short (about 4 lines), with a warning emoji, a bullet-like listing of filters, and a returns note. It is front-loaded with the purpose and required parameters. Slightly more structure could improve readability, but it is efficient.

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?

Despite 100% schema coverage and presence of annotations, the description lacks details on return structure, pagination behavior, or what 'Données de reporting' contains. Given the tool's complexity (23 parameters, no output schema), the description should provide more guidance on expected output.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already provides detailed parameter meanings. The description's listing of key filters adds a summary but no new semantics beyond what's in the schema. 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 is for 'Reporting des plans de production (disponibilités, positionnements...),' which directly identifies its purpose. The sibling tools include other reporting tools (e.g., boond_reporting_companies, boond_reporting_projects), so this description effectively distinguishes it by specifying 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 explicitly warns that startDate and endDate are required, notes key filters, and clarifies that without perimeter filters the report covers all authorized perimeter. It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use or direct alternatives among siblings, but the distinction is clear from the tool name and sibling list.

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