Informations générales 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, covering the safety profile. The description adds a list of return fields (contact info, address, photo, tags, source) which is useful context, but does not go beyond annotations with additional behavioral details such as response format or edge cases.

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 with one sentence of purpose and a short Args/Returns block. Every line serves a purpose, and it is well-structured with no filler or redundant content.

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 endpoint with a single parameter and strong annotations, the description adequately covers the purpose, parameter, and a general overview of return data including example fields. Although there is no output schema, the description provides enough context for an agent to understand what the tool returns, though more detail on response structure could be beneficial.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with a detailed description for 'id' as a numeric unique identifier. The description's Args section merely repeats 'id' without adding new meaning, so the schema already carries the semantic load. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 that the tool retrieves general candidate information, listing specific fields like coordonnées, adresse, état civil, photo, tags, and source. The verb 'Récupère' and resource 'candidat' make the action specific, but it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools such as boond_candidates_get.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling alternatives like boond_candidates_get, boond_candidates_administrative, or boond_candidates_technical_data. It only states what the tool does without any context on selection criteria.

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