Détails d'un(e) compte utilisateur

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond what annotations and the schema provide, such as return format, permissions, or error behavior. It does not contradict annotations, so a neutral score is appropriate.

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?

A single, well-formed sentence communicates the purpose without redundancy. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema) and strong annotations, the description is adequate for a simple get-by-ID operation. It clearly states what is returned (detailed information) without needing to enumerate fields. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the ubiquitous getter pattern among sibling tools.

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 description coverage is 100% for the 'id' parameter, with a clear description of it as a numeric unique identifier. The description's phrase 'par son ID' merely restates the schema, adding no new semantic meaning. Baseline of 3 applies because the schema handles parameter documentation well.

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 uses the specific verb 'Récupère' (retrieves) and clearly identifies the resource as 'compte utilisateur' accessed by ID. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like boond_accounts_search, which implies a search operation rather than a direct fetch.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention boond_accounts_search or other getters, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The context only implies 'use when you have an ID' without stating it explicitly.

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