Rechercher des agences

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

The description contains a factual error: for pageSize it states a maximum of 100, while the input schema specifies a maximum of 500. This misleads the agent regarding parameter limits. Annotations are correct, but the description contradicts the schema, reducing trust.

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 relatively short and uses a structured Args/Returns format. However, it contains an error that should have been caught, and some information (like default values) is repeated from the schema, adding no value.

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?

With annotations and an output schema present, the description provides a reasonable overview of the tool's behavior. It mentions the return includes ID, name, and main details. But it lacks specifics on pagination behavior (e.g., total count), ordering, or potential errors, leaving some gaps.

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% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that keywords can include name, email, and skills. However, the pageSize parameter description contradicts the schema (default 20 vs 30, max 100 vs 500), which degrades usefulness.

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 agencies by keywords with pagination. The tool name and title make the purpose obvious, and it is distinct from the sibling boond_agencies_get tool, which retrieves a specific agency by ID.

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 provides minimal guidance on when to use the tool: it is for searching agencies by keywords. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, leaving usage context somewhat implied.

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