Bons de commande d'un contact

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds no further behavioral traits beyond stating it retrieves a list. With annotations covering safety, the description adds minimal value, hence a score of 3.

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: three short sentences covering purpose, parameter, and return value. No extraneous content. 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is adequate but not complete. It states the return is a list of purchase orders but provides no details on the structure, ordering, or pagination. With no output schema, the description could offer more to fill the 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%, with the parameter 'id' fully described in the schema as 'Identifiant unique de l'entité BoondManager (numérique)'. The description repeats this information without adding new semantic meaning. Based on the baseline of 3 for high coverage, this is appropriate.

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 purchase orders associated with a contact ('Récupère les bons de commande associés à un contact'). It specifies the resource (orders) and the relationship (associated with a contact), making the purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like boond_companies_orders or boond_projects_orders, which could cause confusion.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. Given the extensive list of sibling tools, this lack of usage guidance makes it harder for an agent to select the correct tool.

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