Informations générales d'un candidat

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and the description adds that it returns personal and administrative data, consistent with read-only behavior. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., auth needs, rate limits) are disclosed beyond annotations, so the description adds marginal value.

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 short sentences plus args/returns. It is front-loaded with the primary action and provides key details without redundancy. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and clear annotations, the description covers the core functionality and return scope. However, it could mention that it returns a single candidate object or note prerequisites (e.g., candidate must exist). Still, it is largely complete given the low complexity.

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'. The description's 'ID du candidat' adds no new meaning beyond the schema's 'Identifiant unique de l'entité BoondManager'. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already fully describes the parameter.

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 explicitly states it retrieves general information of a candidate (coordonnées, adresse, état civil, photo, tags, source...), using a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like boond_candidates_administrative or boond_candidates_technical_data by emphasizing 'générales' and listing typical fields.

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 general candidate info but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., boond_candidates_get, boond_candidates_administrative). No when-not or alternative tools mentioned, leaving the agent to infer from context.

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