Positionnements d'un candidat

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, indicating a safe read operation. The description confirms it retrieves data ('Récupère les positionnements') but adds no further behavioral details like pagination or response structure. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences plus a structured args/returns section. It is brief and front-loaded with the main purpose, with no wasted words.

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 tool with one input parameter and no output schema, the description adequately states what it does and what it returns. However, it could mention if the list is paginated or ordered, but not critical.

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 describes the 'id' parameter as an identifier. The description adds 'ID du candidat', which clarifies the entity, but this is somewhat redundant given the tool name. Minimal added meaning.

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 it retrieves positionings (placements on opportunities/projects) for a candidate. It distinguishes from sibling tools like boond_positionings_get (general) and boond_candidates_get (candidate info) by specifying the resource and action.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like boond_resources_positionings or boond_opportunities_positionings. The description only states what it does, not context for selection.

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