Rechercher des business units

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

Annotations cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds pagination details but these are contradictory to the input schema: it states pageSize default/max as 20/100 while the schema declares 30/500. This is misleading and reduces transparency. It also omits the 'fields' parameter entirely, giving an incomplete behavioral view.

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 and front-loaded with a clear summary, but the Args section largely duplicates schema information and includes an inaccuracy. The Returns line is helpful but the overall structure could be tighter without the redundant parameter listing.

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 the tool has an output schema and annotations, the description could rely on those, but it still provides inconsistent pagination info and omits 'fields'. It also does not clarify how this search tool relates to boond_business_units_get. These gaps make it incomplete for an agent to confidently invoke the tool correctly.

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. The description adds value for 'keywords' with examples (nom, email, compétences) and clarifies pagination defaults, but it contains incorrect pageSize values and completely omits the 'fields' parameter. Thus it neither fully compensates nor significantly degrades clarity beyond the schema.

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 does a keyword-based search of business units in BoondManager with pagination. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool boond_business_units_get (which presumably retrieves a single business unit) and other entity-specific searches like boond_opportunities_search or boond_resources_search.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention the existence of boond_business_units_get or any other search tools, nor does it state when not to use this tool. Though the name implies search, there is no explicit usage context or exclusions.

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