Rechercher des comptes utilisateurs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so no contradiction. The description adds the return format (list of accounts with ID, name, details) and pagination defaults, complementing annotations. It doesn't disclose edge cases like empty results or behavior with unknown fields, but annotations carry the safety burden.

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 an Args list followed by Returns. Every sentence earns its place. Slight redundancy with schema defaults (page default 1 listed in both), but compact and front-loaded with the core purpose sentence. No filler.

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 read-only search tool with strong annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), an output schema present, and full schema param coverage, the description adequately covers purpose, parameters, and return shape. It could note result limits or the fields-projection caveat, but given schema/annotations richness, this is reasonably complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so all 4 params are described in the schema with descriptions and defaults. The tool description repeats keywords, page, and pageSize at a high level and adds the fields-array behavior description ('Projection : attributs à afficher par résultat'). Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema does the heavy lifting; description adds modest value.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Recherche des comptes utilisateurs dans BoondManager par mots-clés avec pagination.' It clearly states searching user accounts by keywords with pagination. Differentiates from siblings like boond_accounts_get (retrieval by ID) and other entity _search tools, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 implies usage context (searching accounts by keywords with pagination) but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it contrast with boond_accounts_get or other search tools. No exclusions or alternatives mentioned, which is a gap given the large sibling set.

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