Informations générales d'un contact

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description only needs to add extra behavioral context. It adds 'Lecture seule' (already covered), and a 'Bloc identité et rattachement' return hint, but does not mention errors, rate limits, or any edge-case behavior. This is acceptable with the strong annotations but not a value-add.

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 split into three short, purposeful paragraphs: purpose, when to use, and return summary. It is front-loaded with the main action. It is slightly more verbose than a single-sentence version, but no sentence is wasted.

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 1-parameter fetch tool with no output schema, the description covers the core needs: what it gets, how to differentiate it from boond_contacts_get and boond_contacts_search, and a high-level return description. It could be more specific about which exact fields are in the returned 'Bloc', but the listed fields in the first sentence mitigate that gap.

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 only parameter, id, is documented at 100% coverage in the input schema with type and pattern. The description adds nothing beyond 'par son ID', so it does not supplement schema semantics. With full schema coverage the baseline 3 is the right score.

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 plainly states the verb, resource, and data scope: 'Récupère les informations générales (coordonnées, société de rattachement, fonction, tags) d'un(e) contact, par son ID.' It also names the two most relevant sibling tools and explains what each alternative is for, which lets an agent pick this tool over boond_contacts_get and boond_contacts_search without opening their schema.

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 gives an explicit 'Quand' condition ('ne charger que cette section, sans le reste de la fiche') and an explicit 'Plutôt que' rule naming boond_contacts_get for the full card and boond_contacts_search when the ID is unknown. This gives the agent a concrete decision rule for choosing this tool over its siblings.

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