Actions liées à un contact

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that the tool returns a list of actions and enumerates the action types, which is useful but minimal. It does not disclose any extra behavior such as pagination, ordering, or authorization requirements, though the read-only nature is consistent 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: a one-sentence purpose, followed by a simple Args/Return structure. There is no redundant information or filler. Every sentence earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse and act on.

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 tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description adequately states the return value as a 'Liste des actions liées au contact'. It lists action types, which gives a sense of what will be returned. However, it does not detail the structure of individual action objects, which would be helpful given the absence of an output schema, but the high-level description is sufficient for this basic read-only use case.

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 describes the parameter generically as 'Identifiant unique de l'entité BoondManager (numérique)', while the tool description specifies 'ID du contact' (contact ID). This adds crucial semantic meaning, clarifying that the id must refer to a contact entity. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description's clarification elevates it beyond the baseline.

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 uses a specific verb 'Récupère' (retrieves) and clearly identifies the resource: 'actions (appels, emails, RDV, notes) associées à un contact'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like boond_actions_search (general search) and boond_contacts_opportunities (opportunities, not actions) by scoping to contact actions and listing action types.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is a read-only lookup for a contact's actions, nor does it explicitly contrast with boond_actions_search or other sibling tools. The 'Args' and 'Returns' sections focus on mechanics, not usage context.

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