Détails d'un(e) candidat

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

While the annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, the description adds valuable behavioral details not present in annotations: without `tab` only the base fiche is returned rather than a merge of tabs, unknown IDs surface the raw BoondManager error, and returned data is the JSON entity as provided by the API. The 'Lecture seule' note is consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation, and no contradiction appears.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: it opens with the main action, then organizes usage context, alternatives, parameter behavior, and return value in short labeled sections. Every sentence adds useful information without repetition or padding.

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 get operation with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: input provenance, tab behavior, error behavior, and return format. The main completeness gap is the lack of clarification about when to use this tool's `tab` parameter versus the dedicated tab-specific sibling tools, which are present in the sibling list and semantically overlap.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both `id` and `tab`. The description adds useful meaning by stating that `id` must come from `boond_candidates_search` and never from guesswork, and by explaining the effect of omitting `tab`. However, there is a notable inconsistency: the schema lists `technical` while the description uses `technical-data`, which could mislead an agent about valid `tab` values.

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 operation: 'Récupère la fiche complète d'un(e) candidat par son ID numérique', with a specific verb and resource. It also differentiates from `boond_candidates_search` by noting that this tool requires a numeric ID and returns list-attributs beyond the summary. However, it does not clarify its relationship to the sibling tab-specific tools such as `boond_candidates_information`, `boond_candidates_technical_data`, or `boond_candidates_administrative`, despite the `tab` parameter overlapping with them.

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 gives an explicit usage context: 'Quand : après un `boond_candidates_search`, pour obtenir les attributs qui n'apparaissent pas dans le résumé de liste.' It also tells the agent when not to use it: 'Plutôt que : `boond_candidates_search` si l'ID n'est pas connu.' It lacks explicit exclusions or routing guidance for the dedicated tab-specific sibling tools, so the when-to-use guidance is clear but incomplete.

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