Projets d'une société

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

Description mentions retrieval, consistent with readOnlyHint=true. No additional behavioral details beyond annotations; annotations already provide safety profile. Description adds no new context like pagination or ordering.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences plus Args/Returns stub. Purpose is front-loaded. No unnecessary words.

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?

Minimal but adequate given tool simplicity. Lists return type but lacks details on pagination, projection, or error cases. No output schema to compensate.

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?

Single parameter 'id' is described in both schema and description. Schema coverage is 100%, so description adds no extra meaning beyond 'ID de la société'. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves projects associated with a company. Specific verb 'Récupère' and resource 'projets associés à une société' distinguish it from sibling tools like boond_companies_get or boond_projects_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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like boond_projects_search or other company-specific tools. Lacks context on prerequisites or scenarios where it should be avoided.

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