Télécharger un document

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 substantial behavioral context beyond that: the return format (embedded MCP resource, base64 blob for binaries, text for text mimes), the 5 Mo size limit, the exact-ID requirement with suffix, and the notable edge case that an unknown ID is explicitly rejected rather than receiving the BoondManager home page served as HTTP 200. This is rich, non-obvious behavior that an agent needs to know.

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 with clear sections ('Quand', 'Plutôt que', 'Où trouver les IDs', 'Returns') and front-loads the core purpose. It is somewhat long, but every sentence earns its place: the ID-suffix warning is repeated deliberately because it is the most common failure mode, and the size/context warning is operationally important. A minor deduction for slight redundancy between the 'Plutôt que' and 'Où trouver les IDs' sections.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it covers what the tool does, when to use it, where to find the ID, the exact ID format, the return format, the size limit, and the error behavior. The annotations cover the safety profile (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive). Nothing an agent needs to call this tool correctly is missing.

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 'id' parameter with a pattern and example. The description adds meaningful value beyond the schema by explaining the critical semantic trap: the ID must be taken exactly as exposed by entity relations, including the suffix (e.g., '123_resume'), and a truncated numeric ID designates a different document. This is exactly the kind of parameter nuance that prevents real invocation errors.

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 states a specific verb ('Télécharge le contenu'), a precise resource ('document BoondManager'), and enumerates the document types (CV, justificatif, contrat, facture). It also names the sibling tools it is not (boond_candidates_information / boond_candidates_administrative) and explains the distinction, so an agent can tell it apart from the many sibling tools without opening schemas.

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 explicitly says when to use it ('pour récupérer le contenu d'un CV ou d'un justificatif dont l'ID a été relevé dans un onglet d'entité'), when not to use it (not for finding IDs), and names the alternatives (boond_candidates_information / boond_candidates_administrative) for the ID-finding step. It also warns about the 5 Mo size limit and advises using it only when the file content is truly needed.

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