Informations complètes d'un bon de commande

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces them with 'Lecture seule' and 'Récupère'. Beyond the annotations, it discloses the return shape ('Fiche complète du bon de commande (relations société, contact, projet, prestations incluses)'), which helps an agent understand what the call yields. No contradiction 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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the action and scope, and the 'Quand', 'Plutôt que', and 'Returns' labels make the routing and output expectations scannable. Every sentence contributes distinct value with minimal redundancy.

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 single-parameter, read-only fetch with no output schema, the description is complete: it states the input, when to use it, which siblings to use instead, and what the return contains. An agent can select and invoke the tool correctly without additional context.

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 already fully documented in the schema with type, pattern, and a French description, and schema coverage is 100%. The description only repeats that retrieval is 'par son ID', adding no new semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Récupère les informations complètes ... d'un(e) bon de commande, par son ID', and enumerates the exact sections (période, conditions de paiement, références acheteur, prestations et projet). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tools by naming boond_orders_get and boond_orders_search and the conditions under which each is preferred.

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?

Usage guidance is explicit and structured with 'Quand' and 'Plutôt que': use it to load only this section without the rest of the fiche, prefer boond_orders_get for the base fiche, and boond_orders_search when the ID is unknown. This gives an agent clear selection criteria among sibling tools.

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