Rechercher des sociétés

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

Beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations, the description discloses key behavioral details: the search is server-side, returns a paginated list, and lacks a typeOf filter. It also clarifies that the 'default' keywords type targets name/city/country/expertise/info, and that targeting by ID requires the 'CSOC<id>' prefix, adding valuable context not implied by 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 well-structured with a clear opening, bullet-pointed use cases, and a dedicated note about the missing typeOf filter. It is longer due to the tool's complexity (22 parameters), but every section adds value, and the formatting makes it scannable. No redundancy or filler phrases are present.

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?

Given the tool's 22 optional parameters and high complexity, the description covers the main search patterns, limitations, and return behavior (paginated list). It also points to boond_companies_get for detail, ensuring the agent knows the full workflow. The presence of an output schema further reduces the need for detailed return documentation, making this description highly 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?

Although the schema covers 100% of parameters, the description enriches semantics significantly. It explains practical usage of perimeterDynamic (e.g., 'data' shortcut), keywordsType combinations, the need for dictionary lookups (setting.state.company, setting.expertiseArea), and the special CSOC format for company ID lookup, providing meaningful guidance beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 opens with 'Recherche des sociétés (clients, prospects, fournisseurs…) dans BoondManager avec filtres serveur', clearly stating the tool's purpose as a search for companies with server-side filters. This distinguishes it from sibling search tools targeting other entities (candidates, resources, contacts) and from boond_companies_get, which is referenced for fetching 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 explicit use cases, such as 'Mes comptes' via perimeterDynamic: ['data'] and how to filter by states, expertise areas, and periods. It explicitly notes the absence of a 'typeOf' filter and directs users to boond_companies_get for type inference and details, offering clear alternatives and when to use them.

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