Factures 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, destructiveHint=false; the description adds no contradiction and reinforces read-only. It adds useful behavior: the response is a list preceded by computed totals, and explains the deltaInvoicedExcludingTax > 0 meaning. No pagination or error details, but the safety profile is covered by 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?

Well-structured with front-loaded purpose, then Quand/Plutôt que, a delta note, and Returns. Only minor redundancy is 'Lecture seule', which duplicates the readOnlyHint annotation.

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 tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states what is returned, the totals included, and the delta semantics. It also provides routing guidance. No critical missing information for invocation.

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 covers 100% of the single parameter with type, pattern, and description. The description only repeats 'par son ID' and doesn't add format or source details beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific verb ('Récupère'), resource ('factures ... d'un bon de commande'), identifier ('par son ID'), and key fields. It explicitly distinguishes itself from boond_orders_get and boond_orders_search, so an agent can select it correctly.

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?

Provides explicit 'Quand' (load only this section without the rest of the record) and 'Plutôt que' alternatives: boond_orders_get for the base record, boond_orders_search when the ID is unknown. Also orients the agent to invoicing preparation with deltaInvoicedExcludingTax.

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