Opportunités d'un contact

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds no further behavioral context beyond stating the return is a list. It does not disclose pagination, authentication requirements, or rate limits, so it adds minimal value beyond the 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 and well-structured: a one-line purpose, followed by a clear Args section and Returns. No wasteful text. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool with one parameter and annotations, the description is mostly complete. It specifies input and output. However, it omits details like potential pagination or whether the list is ordered, which could be important for the agent. Overall, sufficient given the annotations.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The tool description adds 'ID du contact' which clarifies the entity type, but the schema already provides pattern and required status. The addition is marginal but valid.

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 it retrieves opportunities associated with a contact. The verb 'Récupère' and resource 'opportunités commerciales' are specific, and the title 'Opportunités d'un contact' reinforces the purpose. It distinguishes from sibling tools like boond_contact_get (gets contact details) and boond_opportunities_get (gets a single opportunity without contact context).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as boond_opportunities_search or boond_contacts_actions. The description only states what it does without explaining the context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name.

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