Reporting synthèse

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations, the description adds useful behavioral details: the API requires both startDate and endDate, and without a perimeter filter the report covers the entire authorized perimeter. It also notes that state/type IDs come from boond_application_dictionary. No contradiction 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 relatively concise and front-loaded with the purpose and required-date warning, but it contains a redundant 'period' in the key filters list and a somewhat cluttered structure. It could be tightened without losing information.

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 24-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides a high-level map and key caveats, but the return value is only described as 'Données de reporting,' which is too vague. It does not describe the shape of the response or how to interpret the results, leaving a significant gap.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful grouping of key filters (perimeter, period, reportingType, reportingCategory, etc.), clarifies the startDate/endDate relationship, and explains the default perimeter scope, going beyond the raw schema.

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 identifies this as a global synthesis report covering commercial, HR, recruitment, billing, etc. It distinguishes itself from sibling reporting tools by emphasizing 'globale' and the list of categories, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'generate'.

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 clear context: when to use it (global reporting synthesis) and what the main filters are. It warns that startDate + endDate are required by the API and explains the default perimeter behavior. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative reporting tools.

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