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 covered. The description adds useful context by stating the return is a list of actions attached to the company and explicitly notes 'Lecture seule', reinforcing the read-only nature. It doesn't describe pagination or ordering, but for a simple read tool with strong annotations, this is adequate.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-line summary, a 'Quand' usage condition, a 'Plutôt que' alternative routing, and a 'Returns' note. Every sentence earns its place and the most important scoping information is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage and strong annotations, the description covers the essential context: what it returns, when to use it, and how it differs from siblings. It doesn't mention pagination or response format, but with no output schema and a simple list return, this is a minor gap rather than a critical omission.

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%, so the single 'id' parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The description adds that the ID is the company's ID and that it retrieves actions for that company, which is consistent with the schema but doesn't add new format or constraint details beyond it. Baseline 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 states a specific verb ('Récupère') and resource ('les actions ... d'un(e) société, par son ID'), and enumerates the action types (appels, emails, RDV, notes). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like boond_companies_get and boond_companies_search by naming them explicitly.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool ('Quand : pour ne charger que cette section, sans le reste de la fiche') and names the alternatives to use instead ('Plutôt que : boond_companies_get ... boond_companies_search si l'ID est inconnu'). This gives an agent clear routing guidance.

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