Rechercher des avantages

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) already cover the safety profile. The description adds a minimal 'Returns: Liste des avantages correspondants' but does not disclose pagination behavior, response format details, or any rate limits. It adds some context beyond annotations but not significant behavioral depth.

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 concise with a clear structure: a one-sentence summary, an Args list, and a Returns line. The Args list is redundant with the schema, but it is organized and easy to scan. It earns high marks for clarity, though it could trim redundant parameter repetition.

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 comprehensive schema coverage, the description is adequate but not complete. There is no output schema, and the Returns line is vague ('Liste des avantages correspondants') without specifying the structure or whether standard summary fields are included. The schema's 'fields' description hints at a 'standard summary', but the description itself does not clarify return expectations. Given the low complexity, a 3 is fair.

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 baseline is 3. The description repeats the keywords, resourceId, and pagination params but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. It omits the 'fields' parameter entirely, but since the schema fully documents it, the description does not need to compensate. The redundancy means no added 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?

The description clearly states the tool searches for benefits (avantages) in BoondManager, with examples (tickets restaurant, mutuelle, véhicule, primes) and an optional resource filter. This is a specific verb+resource+scope that distinguishes it from sibling tools like boond_advantages_get (a getter) and boond_resources_advantages (resource-specific).

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 search tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes boond_resources_advantages and boond_advantages_get, but the description does not mention when to prefer this tool or any exclusion criteria. The 'optional resource filter' hint is implicit usage, not explicit comparative guidance.

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