Positionnements d'un candidat

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safe read nature is covered. The description adds only that it returns a list, which is already evident from 'Récupère' and the Returns line. It does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as pagination, ordering, or potential empty results beyond what annotations imply.

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 short and front-loaded, with a clear purpose sentence. The Args/Returns section is structured and minimal. Minor redundancy: 'Returns: Liste des positionnements' restates what 'Récupère' already implies, but overall it is efficient.

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 list tool with one well-documented parameter and full annotation coverage, the description provides enough information. It explains the resource type and return format, though it could note that the list might be filtered/detail-free. No output schema exists, but the return list is described sufficiently.

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% and the schema already thoroughly documents the 'id' parameter with type, pattern, and description. The description merely repeats the parameter name and type, adding no extra semantic value over 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 uses a specific verb 'Récupère' and names the exact resource: 'les positionnements (placements sur des opportunités/projets) d'un candidat'. It disambiguates from sibling tools like boond_candidates_get (gets candidate info) and boond_positionings_get (general positionings) by scoping to a specific candidate.

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 (when you need a candidate's positionings) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like boond_positionings_search or boond_candidates_get. There is no direct 'use this when' guidance, only the inherent purpose from the name and description.

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