Informations complètes d'une facture

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by detailing the return contents (relations with company, contact, order, project, service included) and restates 'Lecture seule' consistently. It does not mention failure modes or rate limits, but for a simple read tool with annotations, this is sufficient.

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 highly concise and well-structured: purpose, usage guidance, and return info are clearly separated with labels. It is front-loaded with the main action and contains no redundant or filler sentences.

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 read-only single-ID fetch with annotations covering safety and a clear usage section, the description is largely complete. It states the return scope but does not mention error handling (e.g., non-existent ID). Given its simplicity and the presence of annotations, it meets the needs of an agent adequately, though a note on error behavior would push it to 5.

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 coverage is 100% and the only parameter 'id' is described as the numeric unique identifier. The description mentions 'par son ID' but adds no new semantic beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema fully documents the parameter.

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 verb 'Récupère' (retrieves), the resource 'facture' (invoice), and specifies it fetches complete information by ID. It enumerates the contents (billed lines, billing/bank details, due date, sending status, linked order/project) and explicitly names sibling tools to differentiate itself. The purpose is unmistakable.

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?

It provides explicit 'Quand' (when to use) and 'Plutôt que' (alternatives) guidance. It states to use this tool to load only the full invoice section without the rest of the record, and directs to 'boond_invoices_get' for the base record or 'boond_invoices_search' if the ID is unknown. This is clear and actionable.

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