Données administratives d'un candidat

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description confirms a read operation but does not add further behavioral context (e.g., whether it returns nested objects, requires specific permissions, or has pagination). No contradiction exists.

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: two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and no superfluous words. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is fully adequate. It explains what it does, the input required, and the nature of the return. Annotations cover behavioral aspects.

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% (id parameter described as 'Identifiant unique de l'entité BoondManager'). The description restates 'ID du candidat', adding slight context that it's a candidate ID, but baseline is 3 as schema already provides meaning.

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 specifies 'Récupère les informations administratives d'un candidat' which is a clear verb-resource pair (retrieve administrative info). It distinguishes from sibling tools like boond_candidates_get (general get) and boond_candidates_information (broader info).

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 reading administrative data but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., boond_candidates_get, boond_candidates_information). No when-not or exclusions are stated.

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