Opportunités d'une société

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it returns a list of opportunities, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination, error handling, or response structure beyond what annotations cover. This is adequate but not rich.

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 extremely concise: one sentence for purpose, followed by straightforward Args and Returns sections. Every sentence is necessary, and the main verb is front-loaded. No redundant information.

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?

While the tool has no output schema, the description only vaguely states 'Liste des opportunités de la société', leaving the exact structure of the returned opportunities undefined. It also does not mention filtering, sorting, or pagination options. This is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's capabilities.

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%, and the schema already describes the parameter as 'Identifiant unique de l'entité BoondManager'. The description repeats this as 'ID de la société', adding no new semantics. Baseline 3 applies since schema_coverage >80%.

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 of a company ('Récupère les opportunités commerciales d'une société'). The verb 'récupère' and resource 'opportunités' are specific, and the tool name 'boond_companies_opportunities' distinguishes it from siblings like 'boond_opportunities_get' (which gets a specific opportunity) and 'boond_companies_get' (company details).

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'boond_opportunities_search' or 'boond_contacts_opportunities'. It only implies usage when a company ID is available, but lacks exclusions or context for choosing this tool over others.

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