Bons de commande d'un contact

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and mutation concerns. The description adds a 'Returns' section indicating the result is a list of orders, which is useful since there is no output schema. However, it does not disclose additional behavioral details (e.g., pagination, authorization, rate limits) beyond what annotations provide, so it adds only modest value beyond the structured fields.

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 succinct, front-loaded with the core purpose, and logically organized into 'Quand', 'Plutôt que', and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose—stating the action, when to use it, what to use instead, and the return type—with no redundant or verbose content. It is an exemplar of concise, structured documentation.

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, read-only annotations), the description covers all essential aspects: the action, the identifier, usage guidance, alternatives, and the return type. It lacks only minor details such as pagination or ordering of results, but these are not critical for a straightforward read operation. The description is adequate for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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 input schema covers 100% of the parameter documentation, with the id parameter described as 'Identifiant unique de l'entité BoondManager (numérique)' (numerical unique identifier). The description only restates that the tool uses the contact's ID without adding new semantic meaning, such as format constraints or examples. This aligns with the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage where the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 action: 'Récupère les bons de commande d'un(e) contact, par son ID' (Retrieves the orders of a contact by its ID). It further differentiates from sibling tools by explicitly naming alternatives (boond_contacts_get, boond_contacts_search) and the conditions under which they should be used instead. This makes the tool's distinct purpose unmistakable.

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 load only this section, without the rest of the record). It also names alternative tools and their appropriate contexts, such as using boond_contacts_get for the full record or boond_contacts_search when the ID is unknown. This gives clear when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance.

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