Rechercher des avantages

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds that it returns a list of matching advantages, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits, data consistency guarantees) beyond what annotations convey.

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 short, front-loaded with purpose, and uses a clear Args block to list parameters. Every sentence is relevant, with no wasted words or redundancy.

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 that there is no output schema, the description minimally explains the return value ('Liste des avantages correspondants') and mentions pagination. It does not cover error conditions, data freshness, or additional context. However, annotations cover safety aspects, making the description adequate but not thorough.

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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description repeats parameter names and adds minimal context (e.g., optional resource filter, pagination), but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema (e.g., keyword format or relationship between resourceId and other resources).

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 clearly states it searches for advantages (benefits) in BoondManager, with optional resource filter. It uses specific examples like tickets restaurant, mutuelle, vehicle, primes, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like boond_advantages_get (which retrieves a single advantage).

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 lists parameters and mentions optional filtering by resource, which implies usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., boond_advantages_get for a specific advantage or other search tools), nor does it provide when-not or alternative guidance.

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