Reporting ressources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds context that types/states come from the dictionary and the default perimeter behavior, but it does not disclose output format, pagination specifics, or potential performance characteristics. This is adequate given the annotation coverage.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. It uses bullet-like lists of filters and conditions without excessive prose. The 'Returns' line is short but functional. No wasted words, and the structure makes it easy to scan.

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?

The tool has 24 parameters, no output schema, and the description's 'Returns: Données de reporting' is too vague to help an agent understand the response structure. It does not explain how the report is organized (e.g., by resource or by period), how indicators relate, or how pagination works. Given the complexity, the description is incomplete for effective invocation without additional context.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a note about states/types being integer IDs from boond_application_dictionary, which is also mentioned in the schema. It does not provide significant new semantics beyond what the schema already offers, so no higher score is warranted.

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 states it is for resource reporting with examples of metrics (taux d'occupation, CA, productivité), making the purpose clear. It lists key filters and mentions scope, which helps distinguish it from other reporting tools, though it does not explicitly compare itself to sibling tools like boond_reporting_projects.

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 provides a useful guideline: without a perimeter filter, the report covers the entire authorized perimeter. It also lists the main filter categories (perimeter, period, reportingCategory, etc.) but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives such as boond_reporting_companies or boond_reporting_synthesis. There is no exclusionary guidance.

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