Compétences techniques d'un candidat

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read-only nature is disclosed. The description adds context about the data payload scope (technical skills, resume) and does not contradict the 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 concise, with a single clear sentence and compact Args/Returns format. Every part is informative and directly useful, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool has a single parameter and no output schema. The description lists the major content categories returned but does not describe response structure or potential error conditions. For a simple read operation with strong annotations, this is adequate but not fully complete.

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 input schema already fully documents the 'id' parameter with type string and pattern for numeric digits, offering 100% coverage. The description merely restates 'ID du candidat', adding no new semantic information beyond what the schema provides.

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 the specific verb 'Récupère' (retrieves) and identifies the resource as the technical profile of a candidate, enumerating content areas (skills, experiences, training, certifications, languages, CV). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like boond_candidates_information or boond_candidates_administrative.

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 a candidate's technical profile is needed but does not explicitly state alternatives or when-not-to-use. It does not mention that boond_candidates_get might return basic info or that boond_candidates_information covers other aspects, leaving the choice to the agent's inference.

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