Données administratives d'un candidat

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as return format, error behavior, authentication requirements, or data sensitivity. It merely repeats the tool's purpose without value beyond 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 very short and front-loaded, with a one-sentence purpose and an args/returns structure. However, the 'Returns' line simply repeats the purpose, and the 'Args' block duplicates the schema, introducing minor redundancy.

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 simple read-only getter with one parameter and good annotations, the description is reasonably complete. However, without an output schema, it fails to clarify what 'administrative data' includes, which could lead to ambiguity when choosing among similar candidate endpoints. Slightly more specificity would improve 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?

The schema already fully documents the single 'id' parameter (string, numeric pattern, unique identifier). The description's 'ID du candidat' adds only a slight clarification that it refers to a candidate ID, which is already obvious from the tool name. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3.

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 retrieves administrative data for a candidate using a specific verb ('récupère') and resource. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like boond_candidates_information or boond_candidates_technical_data beyond the word 'administrative', which is a clear but unstated differentiation.

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 tool versus alternatives. The intended use is only implied by the name/title, and the description offers no exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling candidate endpoints.

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