Projets d'une société

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Lecture seule' repeats that rather than adding new behavioral context. It does add that the return is a list of projects, which is useful given the absent output schema, but there is no deeper behavioral disclosure such as pagination or error cases. With annotations carrying the safety profile, 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 compact and each segment earns its place: purpose, when, alternatives, and return type. It is slightly more expanded than the sparsest possible wording, but the segmentation makes it easy to parse. It is appropriately sized for a tool with one parameter and clear routing.

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 single-parameter, read-only tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: what is returned, when to use it, and how it relates to alternatives. There is no hidden pagination or complex behavior that would require more explanation here.

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 schema covers 100% of the parameter with an 'id' description including pattern and meaning. The description only says 'par son ID', which adds no new meaning beyond the schema. A baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema already carries the full parameter documentation.

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 states a specific verb ('Récupère'), the resource ('les projets'), and the entity type ('d'un(e) société'/'par son ID'). It names the sibling alternatives explicitly, which distinguishes it from boond_companies_get and boond_companies_search. An agent can instantly know what this tool does and how it differs from close siblings.

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 gives explicit 'Quand' guidance (load only the projects section of a company) and explicit 'Plutôt que' routing to boond_companies_get and boond_companies_search. It tells the agent exactly when to use this tool and when to prefer alternatives, leaving no ambiguity.

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