Détails d'un(e) log

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 little beyond restating the title's 'informations détaillées' and the ID parameter; it does not mention response format, error behavior, or any other operational traits.

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 a single, well-structured, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and scope. Every word contributes to clarity, with no unnecessary information or redundancy.

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 simple read-only get-by-ID tool with one parameter, the description is minimally viable. However, since there is no output schema, the vague 'informations détaillées' does not give an agent expectations about what fields the returned log contains, leaving a notable completeness 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?

The schema description coverage is 100% and the id parameter is fully documented with a pattern and a description ('Identifiant unique de l'entité BoondManager (numérique)'). The description's 'par son ID' simply reinforces the schema without adding new semantic detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses the specific verb 'Récupère' (retrieves) with the resource 'log' and explicitly scopes retrieval 'par son ID' (by its ID). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling boond_logs_search, which searches for logs rather than fetching one by ID.

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 phrase 'par son ID' gives a clear usage context: this tool is for fetching a single log when its ID is already known. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative like boond_logs_search for cases where the ID is unknown.

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