Actions liées à une société

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds behavior details: it returns a list of actions (calls, emails, appointments, notes) and that it takes a company ID. No contradictions.

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 (two sentences) and front-loaded with the purpose. However, it could be slightly more structured, but it is clear and efficient.

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), the description adequately explains what it returns (a list of actions). It does not mention pagination or ordering, which might be expected for a list, but is acceptable for a read-only retrieval tool.

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 parameter description already explains 'Identifiant unique de l'entité BoondManager (numérique)'. The description adds that id is 'ID de la société', which is consistent but does not add new 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 the verb 'Récupère' (retrieves) and the resource 'actions' associated with a company. It distinguishes from siblings like boond_actions_get (generic actions) and boond_candidates_actions (actions for candidates) by specifying 'associées à une société'.

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 versus alternatives such as boond_actions_search or boond_actions_get. The description implies it is for company-specific actions, but does not mention exclusion criteria or alternative tools.

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