Factures impayées à relancer

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds critical behavioral context beyond these annotations: it returns a runbook text that the model must then execute by calling referenced Boond tools. This is a key behavioral trait that would otherwise be unknown, and it also mentions grouping by company and optional filtering.

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 three focused sentences: main functionality, optional filter, MCP equivalence/usage, and runbook output. Every sentence earns its place with no filler, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

Even though there is no output schema, the description explains the return value is a runbook text and what the model should do with it. Combined with the annotations (read-only, idempotent) and the full parameter schema, the description provides complete context for a read-only workflow tool: what it does, when to use it, and what to expect in the output.

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 provides 100% coverage: the sole parameter `society_id` has a full description explaining it accepts a numeric ID or company name with auto-resolution via `boond_companies_search`. The tool description only reaffirms optionality ('Optionnellement filtrable sur une société spécifique') without adding further meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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's function: 'Liste les factures impayées avec date d'échéance dépassée, regroupées par société.' This is a specific verb+resource+scope, listing unpaid invoices with overdue due dates, grouped by company, and optionally filtered by a specific company. This distinguishes it from sibling workflow tools.

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 explicitly says it is the tool equivalent of the MCP prompt `factures_a_relancer` and is useful for clients that do not handle MCP prompts well (e.g., claude.ai). This provides clear when-to-use guidance and names an alternative (the MCP prompt), satisfying the 'explicit when/when-not/alternatives' criterion.

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