Informations complètes d'un achat/sous-traitance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the return content ('Fiche complète' with relations ressource, agence, projet, prestation) and explicitly states 'Lecture seule', reinforcing the read-only nature. It doesn't contradict annotations and adds useful information beyond what annotations provide.

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 well-structured: a purpose sentence, a 'Quand'/'Plutôt que' block, and a 'Returns' note. It front-loads the core purpose and uses bullet-like formatting for readability. No filler or redundant wording.

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-ID read operation with no output schema, the description adequately covers what is returned (full purchase record with relations) and when to use it. It omits potential error handling or auth requirements, but these are not critical for a simple read tool. Given the annotations and schema, the information provided is sufficient for correct 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage: the only parameter 'id' is described as 'Identifiant unique de l'entité BoondManager (numérique)' with a pattern. The description does not add further meaning about the parameter, such as how to obtain it or format nuances. Baseline 3 applies because 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 states a specific verb ('Récupère') and resource ('achat') with a clear scope: complete information for a single purchase by ID. It enumerates the included fields (période, quantité, montants, TVA, conditions de paiement, ressource, projet, prestation) and explicitly names sibling tools (boond_purchases_get, boond_purchases_search) to differentiate itself.

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' (when to use) and 'Plutôt que' (rather than) guidance. It tells the agent to use this tool to load only the purchase section without the rest of the record, and directs to boond_purchases_get for the base record or boond_purchases_search when the ID is unknown. This clearly routes between alternatives.

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