Positionnements d'un candidat

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety. The description adds that the tool returns a list of positionings, which is consistent but does not contradict annotations. No additional traits like rate limits or auth needs are mentioned.

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 with two sentences and an Args/Returns block. It is front-loaded and every sentence contributes value 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, rich annotations), the description is complete enough. It explains what it does, the input, and the output. It lacks details about pagination or error handling, but for a basic retrieval tool it is adequate.

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 schema description coverage is 100% for the single 'id' parameter, which is described as 'Identifiant unique de l'entité BoondManager'. The tool description mentions 'ID du candidat' but adds no further 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 it retrieves positionings (placements on opportunities/projects) for a candidate, using the verb 'Récupère' and specifying the resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on candidate-specific positionings, which is unique among the listed siblings.

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 state when to use versus alternatives like boond_positionings_get or boond_positionings_search. No exclusions or context are provided beyond the basic purpose.

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