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 value by explicitly stating 'Lecture seule' (read-only) and specifying the return type: 'Returns : Liste des opportunités du contact' (list of the contact's opportunities). It also clarifies the scoping behavior (only the opportunities section, not the full record). This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 compact and well-structured. It front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence, then provides usage guidance, alternatives, and return type in a clear, scannable format. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 list tool with one parameter, the description is nearly complete. It covers the purpose, when to use it, alternatives, and return type. The only minor gap is that it doesn't describe pagination or sorting behavior, but given the tool's simplicity and the annotations covering safety, this is a minor omission rather than a significant 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single 'id' parameter as the unique numeric identifier of the BoondManager entity. The description adds that the ID is the contact's ID, which is a slight clarification, but it doesn't provide additional format or syntax details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter documentation.

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 the verb 'Récupère' (retrieves), the resource 'opportunités commerciales' of a contact, and the required identifier (ID). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly naming boond_contacts_get and boond_contacts_search as alternatives, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Quand : pour ne charger que cette section, sans le reste de la fiche' (when to use: to load only this section without the rest of the record). It also names alternatives and the condition for choosing them: 'Plutôt que : boond_contacts_get pour la fiche de base, ou boond_contacts_search si l'ID est inconnu' (rather than boond_contacts_get for the base record, or boond_contacts_search if the ID is unknown). This is clear and actionable.

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