Rechercher des notifications

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

With annotations declaring readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, the description adds value by clarifying that 'category' must be a singular string (not an array) and that the return is a list. This goes beyond the schema and annotations.

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 concise and well-structured with a warning, args list, and returns. It front-loads the purpose and avoids unnecessary prose, though the args list somewhat duplicates the schema.

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 complete schema and annotations, the description sufficiently covers the essential behavior for a read-only search tool: it specifies the return type and the required category parameter. It does not explain pagination or projection, but those are already in the schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the required category enum and adds the singular-array nuance, but does not add meaningful extra semantics for state, parentType, page, pageSize, or fields, which are all well documented in 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 clearly states 'Recherche des notifications dans BoondManager' (search notifications in BoondManager), giving a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling boond_notifications_get, though the 'search/get' distinction is implicit in the names.

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 gives clear context for searching notifications and emphasizes that category is required, which is a key usage constraint. However, it does not mention alternatives or explicitly state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a full 5.

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