Rechercher des agences

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, etc. The description adds return-value information (list with ID, name, main details) and pagination, but does not disclose additional behavioral constraints beyond existing annotation coverage. No contradiction with annotations.

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 moderately concise but the Args section is redundant with the schema and contains factual errors about pagination limits. The structure is clear, but inaccuracies undermine its value, so it does not earn a higher score.

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 output schema exists and annotations are present, so a brief description would suffice. However, the inconsistent pageSize defaults/max and omission of the 'fields' parameter create confusion, leaving the tool less complete than the bare schema alone.

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?

The schema has 100% coverage, but the description's Args section misstates pageSize (default 20, max 100 vs schema's default 30, max 500), omits the 'fields' parameter entirely, and adds no meaningful detail beyond what schema already provides. This actively harms parameter understanding.

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 agencies in BoondManager by keywords with pagination, using a specific verb (Rechercher) and resource (agences). It distinguishes itself from siblings like boond_agencies_get, which presumably fetches a single agency.

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 for keyword-based search but does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over boond_agencies_get or mention exclusions. No alternative tools are named, so guidelines remain implicit.

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