Notes de frais d'une ressource

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the core safety profile is covered. The description adds that the result is a monthly list and that line details are accessible via boond_expenses_get, which is useful context. It does not add much beyond those points, so the description meets but does not strongly exceed the annotation baseline.

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 compact and well structured: purpose first, then 'Quand', 'Plutôt que', and 'Returns'. It uses headings to make the information scannable and contains no filler or irrelevant details. Every sentence earns its place.

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 is low complexity with a single required parameter, full schema coverage, and informative annotations. The description covers the purpose, when to use it, how to distinguish it from related tools, the return summary, and where to get line-level details. There are no significant gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 single 'id' parameter is fully documented in the JSON schema with a description, type, and pattern. Schema coverage is 100%, so the description is not required to carry this burden. The phrase 'par son ID' simply restates what the schema already communicates. This matches the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 leads with a specific verb and object: 'Récupère les notes de frais d'un(e) ressource, par son ID.' It clearly differentiates the tool from siblings by naming boond_resources_get, boond_resources_search, and boond_expenses_get. This leaves no ambiguity about which resource data is fetched.

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 'Quand' section explicitly states when to use this tool ('pour ne charger que cette section, sans le reste de la fiche'). The 'Plutôt que' section names the alternative tools and the condition that makes them appropriate, such as boond_resources_search when the ID is unknown. This is explicit, actionable routing guidance.

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