Rechercher des agences

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, which already cover the safety profile. The description adds the return value shape (list with ID, name, and main details) and pagination defaults, which are useful beyond annotations. No contradiction.

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?

Description is tight and front-loaded with the core action, followed by clear Args listing and a Returns line. No wasted words. Structure is logical and scannable.

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?

The tool is fairly simple (a 4-param read-only search) with an output schema present, so return values don't need elaboration. Description covers search semantics and pagination. However, the discrepancy between description and schema for pageSize defaults (20 vs 30, max 100 vs 500) creates ambiguity that reduces completeness.

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 baseline is 3. However, the description adds meaningful default values (page default 1, pageSize default 20, max 100), which the schema actually contradicts — schema says pageSize default is 30 and max is 500 while description says 20 and 100. This discrepancy actually reduces clarity, but the description does add the search semantics (name, email, skills).

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?

Purpose is clear: search agencies in BoondManager by keywords with pagination. The verb 'Recherche des agences' plus the keyword/pagination detail specifies exactly what the tool does. Distinguishes reasonably from siblings (there are many *_search tools, but 'agences' clarifies the resource; however it doesn't explicitly contrast with boond_agencies_get).

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 explains what args are used, and the pagination behavior is clear. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs boond_agencies_get or other search tools, nor when not to use it. The context is implied but not explicit about alternatives or exclusions.

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