Informations générales 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 adds that the tool returns 'données personnelles et administratives', which is consistent and adds some context about the data returned, but does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.

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 very concise: two short sentences plus a parenthetical list of example fields. It is front-loaded with the main action and contains no superfluous text.

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 tool has no output schema, the description provides a reasonable list of returned data categories (coordonnées, adresse, état civil, etc.) and states the overall type ('données personnelles et administratives'). This is sufficient for understanding the tool's output, though it could be more explicit about the return format.

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% for the single parameter 'id', which is well-described with pattern and explanation. The description restates the parameter ('id (string): ID du candidat') but adds no new semantic meaning 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 the action ('Récupère les informations générales') and lists example data fields. It distinguishes from sibling tools like boond_candidates_technical_data and boond_candidates_administrative by specifying 'générales', but does not explicitly differentiate from 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 implies usage for retrieving general candidate info, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like boond_candidates_get or boond_candidates_search. No exclusion criteria or typical use cases are given.

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