Actions liées à un contact

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by specifying the types of actions returned (calls, emails, RDV, notes), providing context beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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 very concise, using a single sentence plus an Args/Returns block. Every sentence serves a purpose with no redundancy, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 simplicity (one parameter, read-only, returns a list), the description is fairly complete. It names the returned action types and explains the input. However, without an output schema, the structure of each action is not detailed, but for this context it is adequate.

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 input schema describes the parameter generically as 'Identifiant unique de l'entité BoondManager', but the tool description adds specificity by stating 'ID du contact'. This clarifies the parameter's role, adding meaning 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 it retrieves actions (calls, emails, appointments, notes) associated with a contact. It uses a specific verb 'Récupère' and resource 'actions liées à un contact', and the tool name distinguishes it from similar tools for other entities like boond_candidates_actions or boond_companies_actions.

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?

Usage is implied by the tool name and parameter (contact ID), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like boond_actions_get or boond_actions_search. The description lacks alternatives or when-not scenarios.

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