Actions liées à une société

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it returns a list of action types but does not disclose further behavioral traits like pagination, sorting, or error handling. It does not contradict 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 two lines in the Args section, front-loading the purpose. No redundant information, though the structure is somewhat informal.

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, good annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It clarifies the return type (list of actions). It could mention potential limitations like date ranges or pagination, but it is sufficient for basic usage.

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?

There is only one parameter ('id'). The schema describes it as 'Identifiant unique de l'entité BoondManager' and the description as 'ID de la société'. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds minimal extra 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' and specifies the resource (actions associées à une société) including types (appels, emails, RDV, notes). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like boond_actions_get (single action) and boond_candidates_actions (candidate-specific).

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as boond_actions_search or boond_actions_get. No context about prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases is given.

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