Actions liées à un bon de commande

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and the description adds the nature of the actions ('envois, relances, notes') and states 'Lecture seule' (aligned with annotations). It also discloses the return type (Liste des actions). This adds useful context beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 concise, well-separated sentences: purpose, usage guidance, and return type. No fluff or redundancy; every sentence adds value.

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 simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, when to use it, what it returns, and read-only nature. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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% because the single parameter 'id' has a full description ('Identifiant unique de l'entité BoondManager (numérique)'). The tool description adds no extra parameter meaning, so baseline 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 retrieves actions (envois, relances, notes) of a purchase order by ID. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming alternative tools (boond_orders_get, boond_orders_search) for different needs, so an agent can tell it apart without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly says when to use: 'pour ne charger que cette section' and gives precise alternatives: 'Plutôt que: boond_orders_get pour la fiche de base, ou boond_orders_search si l'ID est inconnu.' This leaves no ambiguity about tool selection.

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