Opportunités d'un contact

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the return is a list of opportunities, but it does not disclose error behavior or any additional side effects. It is consistent with annotations, so no contradiction.

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, with the action stated in the first sentence, followed by clearly formatted Args and Returns sections. Every element earns its place, with no wasted words.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter, and annotations cover safety. The description gives the return type ('Liste des opportunités') but lacks detail about the structure of each opportunity or error handling, which would be helpful given there is no output schema. Still, it is nearly complete for a straightforward read resource.

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?

Input schema provides full coverage with a description of 'id' as the unique numeric identifier of the BoondManager entity. The description merely repeats 'ID du contact' without adding detail about validation or format beyond the schema's pattern. Hence baseline 3 applies.

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 'Récupère les opportunités commerciales associées à un contact' (retrieves commercial opportunities associated with a contact), using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling contact sub-resources (projects, orders, invoices) and company opportunities by focusing on contact associations.

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 implies the tool is used when you need a contact's opportunities, which is clear context. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like boond_opportunities_search or boond_companies_opportunities, nor does it provide exclusion criteria, so it stops short of a 5.

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