Opportunités d'une société

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds little beyond stating it returns a list. No additional behavioral context such as pagination, filtering, or ordering is provided, but it does not contradict the 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 brief and structured with an Args/Returns format, making it easy to parse. However, some content (like 'Args: - id') duplicates schema information, and the conciseness is adequate but not exemplary.

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 tool with one parameter and good annotations, the description gives a high-level return type but lacks details on pagination, sorting, or potential empty results. Without an output schema, this could be more informative, but it is sufficient for a basic retrieval.

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?

The single parameter 'id' is fully described in the input schema with a pattern and explanation. The tool description merely repeats 'ID de la société', adding no new meaning beyond the schema, so it aligns with the 100% schema coverage baseline.

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 tool retrieves commercial opportunities for a company, using the specific verb 'Récupère' and the resource 'opportunités commerciales d'une société'. It is unambiguous, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like boond_contacts_opportunities or boond_opportunities_get.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any exclusions or compare to related tools such as boond_opportunities_search or boond_opportunities_get, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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