Détails d'un(e) candidat

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it returns JSON data and explains the tab filtering, which provides extra context beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, then parameter descriptions. Every word is necessary and no fluff.

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 good annotations, high schema coverage, and the nature of a simple get-by-ID tool, the description is complete. It explains the return type (JSON) and the optional tab parameter, leaving no 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds meaning by explicitly listing the valid tab options (information, technical, financial, actions, contracts, documents) and clarifying that id is the unique identifier. This adds value 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 it retrieves detailed candidate information by ID, and optionally a specific tab. This verb+resource combination, along with the explicit tab options, distinguishes it from sibling tools like boond_candidates_search or boond_candidates_create.

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: to get full details of a specific candidate, optionally filtering by a tab. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but the context from sibling names (e.g., search, create) makes it clear.

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