Reporting projets

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it returns 'Données de reporting' and implies a search operation, but does not disclose additional behaviors like rate limits or pagination details beyond what the schema provides.

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 extremely concise: one sentence for purpose, a bullet list of parameters, and a return statement. No redundant words, and front-loaded with the key action.

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 simple search tool with full annotations and schema coverage, the description is adequate. It explains the purpose, parameters, and return type. However, it lacks examples or details about the reporting data structure, which would enhance completeness, but given the low complexity, it is sufficient.

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 parameters. The description lists the parameters in a compact form but does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., the purpose of keywords or pagination constraints).

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 searches project reporting (CA, marge, rentabilité), using a specific verb and resource. The tool name and context differentiate it from other reporting tools (e.g., boond_reporting_companies), but no explicit sibling comparison is provided.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where this tool is preferred over other reporting or search tools.

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