Données administratives d'un candidat

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

The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat safety. However, it adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., what specific administrative fields are returned, any constraints). With annotations covering the basics, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 extremely concise: three lines covering purpose, arguments, and returns. No wasted words, and the structure with Args and Returns is clear.

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?

Despite having annotations, the description lacks detail on what 'administrative data' includes and how it differs from other candidate retrieval tools. No output schema exists, so the return type is vague. It is incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's scope.

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 only parameter 'id' is fully described in the schema with pattern and description. The description repeats this without adding new meaning. Since schema coverage is 100%, 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 title and description clearly state the tool retrieves administrative data for a candidate, using the verb 'récupère' and specifying the resource 'informations administratives'. It is distinguishable from siblings like 'boond_candidates_get' and 'boond_candidates_information' by the adjective 'administrative', but not explicitly differentiated.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'boond_candidates_get' or other candidate-related tools. The description simply states what it does without context for when it is appropriate or when not to use it.

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