Rechercher des drapeaux

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, giving good safety coverage. The description adds that results return 'ID, nom et détails principaux' and that unknown field names are ignored (in the schema). However, the description doesn't disclose pagination behavior details beyond what schema provides, or any aspects of search semantics (e.g., partial vs exact match). With strong annotations, the added value is moderate.

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 compact and front-loaded with the main purpose in the first line, followed by parameter docs. The Args/RETURNS docstring-style format is readable. The inefficiency is that it repeats parameter information already fully present in the schema (page, pageSize, keywords), and introduces conflicting default values (pageSize 20 vs schema's 30), which adds confusion rather than 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?

An output schema exists, so return value explanation is not required from the description. The schema covers all parameters at 100%. The main gap is the conflicting pageSize default between description and schema, and the description does not mention the 'fields' projection parameter at all. However, given the strong annotations and full schema coverage, this is reasonably complete for a read-only search tool.

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 fully documents all 4 parameters. The description repeats parameter defaults (page default 1, pageSize default 20) which actually CONFLICTS with the schema (schema says pageSize default 30, max 500; description says default 20, max 100). The description adds the 'fields' projection concept only in the schema, not the description. Since schema does the heavy lifting, baseline 3 applies, though the pageSize discrepancy is a minor point of confusion.

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 verb ('Recherche') and resource ('drapeaux dans BoondManager') with keyword-based search and pagination. It distinguishes from 'get' siblings (flags_get would fetch specific flags, this searches) but doesn't explicitly differentiate from the many other *_search siblings, relying on the resource name to carry that weight.

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 states what it does (keyword search with pagination) and implies usage context, but provides no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance. There's no mention of when to prefer this over flags_get or other search tools. The use of pagination parameters implies large result sets but this isn't stated.

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