Notes de frais d'une ressource

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that it returns a list of expense reports, which is useful but does not go into additional behavioral traits such as data filtering or authorization requirements. No contradictions 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 extremely concise, with a clean structure: one sentence for purpose, an Args section, and a Returns section. Every line serves a purpose, and there is no wasted text. It is front-loaded with the main 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, read-only) and the presence of safety annotations, the description is largely adequate. However, it does not describe the structure or fields of the returned expense reports, and there is no output schema to compensate. It also does not mention whether results are paginated or limited, leaving some ambiguity.

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 input schema describes 'id' as a unique numeric identifier without specifying the entity type. The description's Args section explicitly states 'ID de la ressource', clarifying that the id refers to a resource. This adds meaning beyond the schema's generic 'entité BoondManager' wording, enhancing parameter understanding.

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 retrieves expense reports for a resource, using the specific verb 'Récupère' and specifying the resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like time reports or absence reports, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage when you need a resource's expense reports, given the resource ID. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like boond_expenses_search or boond_expenses_get, nor does it state when not to use this tool. The context is clear but exclusions are absent.

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