Informations générales 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 safety profile is covered. The description adds that this returns a company summary sheet and is read-only, but these mostly mirror the annotations; richer behavioral detail such as error cases or response structure is not provided. There is no contradiction with 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, structured into short labeled sections, and every section adds useful context: what is fetched, when to use it, which alternatives exist, and what is returned. It includes some redundancy with annotations ('Lecture seule') but remains 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 read-only getter with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides enough context: the resource, the lookup key, the returned summary, and the distinction from sibling tools. A fuller output schema or error semantics would be nice but is not essential given the low complexity.

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, and the input schema already describes it as a required numeric-string unique entity ID. The description merely says 'par son ID' and adds no format, example, or edge-case guidance beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate because schema coverage is 100%.

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 uses a specific verb ('Récupère') and names the exact resource and scope: general company information such as coordinates, SIRET, website, sector, size, and tags, retrieved by ID. It also explicitly contrasts with boond_companies_get and boond_companies_search, making the tool's role unambiguous.

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 'Quand' and 'Plutôt que' sections give explicit usage conditions: use this tool to load only this section without the rest of the record, and prefer boond_companies_get for the full record or boond_companies_search when the ID is unknown. This directly routes an agent to the correct alternative.

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