Télécharger un document

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, which covers the basic safety profile. The description adds significant behavioral value: the response is an embedded MCP resource (base64 for binaries, plain text for text files), the 5MB size limit, and the non-obvious ID suffix requirement with a warning about truncated IDs.

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 well-structured: it leads with the core purpose, then covers ID sourcing, response format, and limitations in separate sections, ending with a parameter list. Every sentence carries useful information without redundancy or excessive length.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the key operational aspects: how to obtain IDs, the response format (base64/plain text), the 5MB limit, and the required suffix. It does not mention error cases (e.g., not found, invalid ID) or authentication, but for a simple read operation this is adequate and complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by adding the crucial instruction to use the ID 'tel quel, suffixe compris' and explicitly warns that a numeric-only truncated ID is invalid, with an example ('123_resume'). This is valuable semantic guidance on top of the schema.

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 opens with 'Télécharge le contenu d'un document BoondManager ... par son ID', using a specific verb (download) and resource (document content) with a clear identifier-based method. It also enumerates document types (CV, justificatif, contrat, facture), distinguishing it from sibling tools like boond_documents_create and boond_documents_delete.

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 clear contextual guidance: 'Taille max: 5 Mo — à n'utiliser que lorsque le contenu du fichier est réellement nécessaire (un CV en base64 occupe beaucoup de contexte)' warns when the tool should be used and why. It also explains how to find document IDs, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., metadata endpoints) as substitutions.

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