Actions liées à une société

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 safety profile is established. The description adds context by listing the action types (calls, emails, appointments, notes) and the return format, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits like pagination or ordering.

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, starting with a clear sentence, followed by an Args section and a Returns line. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundancy or 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 retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, parameter, and return type. It could mention pagination or filtering, but the tool's simplicity means the current level is nearly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema already fully explaining the 'id' parameter as a numeric BoondManager entity identifier. The description's 'ID de la société' adds little beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Récupère les actions (appels, emails, RDV, notes) associées à une société' with a specific verb (Récupère) and resource (actions for a company), distinguishing it from sibling tools like boond_contacts_actions or boond_opportunities_actions. The scope is unambiguous.

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 retrieving actions linked to a company, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives such as boond_actions_search or provide when-not-to-use guidance. The context is clear but not comparative.

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