Contacts d'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 agent knows this is a safe read. The description adds that it returns a list of contacts, consistent with the read-only annotation. It does not disclose additional behaviors like pagination or response structure, but given the annotations, this is acceptable.

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 three short lines: a one-sentence purpose, an args list, and a returns statement. It conveys all necessary information without waste, front-loading the primary action first.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter read-only tool. The description specifies the input (company ID) and output (contacts list) sufficiently. Without an output schema, the return statement provides basic information. It doesn't address edge cases like empty lists or errors, but the low complexity keeps this adequate.

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% for the single 'id' parameter, and the schema already describes it as a numeric BoondManager entity identifier. The description's 'ID de la société' adds a slightly clearer domain context but does not introduce new semantics like format or constraints. 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 clearly states: 'Récupère les contacts associés à une société' – a specific verb (récupère) and resource (contacts of a company). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like boond_companies_get (company details) or boond_contacts_get (single contact), as it focuses specifically on retrieving the contact list for a given company.

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 when to use: when you have a company ID and need its associated contacts. It lists the required 'id' parameter as 'ID de la société'. However, it does not explicitly discuss alternatives or exclusions, such as using boond_contacts_search for broader contact searches. Thus usage is implied rather than explicit.

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