Détails d'un(e) compte utilisateur

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: unknown IDs pass through BoondManager's raw error, the ID must come from a prior search rather than guessing, and the response is the full JSON entity with attributes plus relations. No contradiction exists.

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, with the core purpose in the first sentence and supporting usage guidance in short labeled lines. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure makes the key routing information easy to scan.

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 single-parameter get-by-ID tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: prerequisite search, excluded alternative, error behavior, ID provenance, and return shape. Nothing needed to invoke 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the id parameter as a numeric BoondManager identifier. The description reinforces that only a numeric ID is accepted and that names are not allowed, but it does not add substantial meaning beyond the schema's existing documentation.

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 and resource: 'Récupère la fiche complète d'un(e) compte utilisateur par son ID numérique.' It clearly distinguishes this from boond_accounts_search by emphasizing the full record retrieval and ID-based lookup, so an agent can tell them apart immediately.

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?

The description explicitly says when to use it ('après un boond_accounts_search'), when not to use it ('Plutôt que : boond_accounts_search si l'ID n'est pas connu'), and notes the tool does not accept a name. This is strong routing guidance with no reliance on inference.

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