Actions liées à une opportunité

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful context about the returned data being a list of opportunity-bound actions, but it does not describe pagination or any other edge behavior, so it stays at the baseline for annotation-supported definitions.

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 short, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses compact labeled sections for usage guidance, alternatives, and return value. Each line contributes meaning; the 'Lecture seule' note is redundant with annotations but does not add meaningful bloat.

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 one-parameter tool with rich annotations, the description covers what the tool returns, why to use it, and which siblings to prefer in other situations. No critical information needed to select or invoke the 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?

The schema already covers the single parameter with a descriptive label and pattern, so schema coverage is 100%. The description clarifies that the ID identifies an opportunity rather than a generic entity, but it adds no additional format or constraint information beyond 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 a specific verb ('Récupère'), a clear resource ('les actions ... d'une opportunité'), and the lookup key ('par son ID'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming boond_opportunities_get and boond_opportunities_search as alternatives.

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 'Quand' section explicitly states the intended use case: loading only this section without the rest of the record. The 'Plutôt que' section gives concrete alternative tools and the conditions under which they should be chosen instead.

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