Détails d'un(e) société

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds that it returns complete JSON data and supports optional tabs, which is some behavioral context, but it doesn't go beyond that or 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 compact and front-loaded with the main action and resource. However, the Args section duplicates the schema, adding some redundancy, so it's not perfectly optimized, but still 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?

For a simple get-by-ID tool with strong annotations, the description covers purpose, parameters, and return type. It lacks details on error handling or the relationship to specialized endpoints like boond_companies_information, but is adequate for most use cases.

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 both id and tab described. The description repeats these args without adding new semantics, so it provides no value beyond what the schema already documents. 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 it retrieves detailed information for a company by ID, with optional tabs (information, technical, financial, actions, contracts, documents). This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from search and other entity-specific get tools, even though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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?

It provides clear context: use this when you have a company ID and want detailed information, optionally specifying a tab. It doesn't mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the prerequisite of having an ID is implied and the optional tab guidance is helpful.

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