Projets 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, covering the safety profile. The description adds only that the return is a list of projects, but it does not disclose pagination, ordering, permissions, or other behavioral nuances. 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 extremely concise, with a front-loaded main sentence and a structured Args/Returns section. Every word earns its place, and there is no unnecessary repetition.

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 getter with one parameter, no output schema, and clear annotations, the description adequately states input and return type. It could be slightly more detailed about the exact structure of the returned list or edge cases, but given the low complexity, it is sufficiently complete.

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% for the single 'id' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description clarifies that the ID refers to a company, but this is largely redundant given the tool name. It adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema.

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 action 'Récupère' and the resource 'les projets associés à une société', which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like boond_contacts_projects or boond_resources_projects by explicitly naming the company context.

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 implies the tool is for retrieving projects of a company, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions like contact or resource projects. The context is clear but not elaborated.

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