Détails d'un(e) contact

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safe read nature is known. The description adds the return format ('Données JSON complètes') and optional tab behavior, but does not disclose any deeper behavioral traits like error handling, permissions, or the effect of invalid tab values. 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 concise and front-loaded with the primary action, followed by a clean Args/Returns structure. It is not overly long, though the Args section repeats some information already present in the schema, which is a minor redundancy.

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 read-only get operation (2 params, no output schema, annotations covering safety), the description is sufficient: it states what it retrieves, by ID, optional tab, and the return type. It does not list all possible tab values (also in the schema) or describe edge cases, but overall it is adequate for this simple tool.

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 description coverage is 100%: both 'id' and 'tab' already have descriptive text in the schema. The description simply repeats the same meaning without adding extra semantic detail (e.g., value formats, allowed values, or relationships), so it relies on the schema rather than adding value.

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') with a clear resource ('contact par son ID') and states the action: retrieving detailed information. It is clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like boond_contacts_information or boond_contacts_search, so it doesn't earn a 5.

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: use it when you have a contact ID and want detailed data, with an optional tab. However, no explicit alternatives or exclusions are provided (e.g., when to use the search tool instead), so guidance is only implicit rather than fully explicit.

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