Actions liées à une opportunité

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds that it returns a list of actions with examples, but does not detail pagination, authorization needs, or structure of the returned actions.

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 extremely concise: one sentence for purpose, then structured Args/Returns. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, good annotations), the description covers the core purpose and parameter. It could elaborate on the return structure, but it is largely complete for this context.

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% with a clear description of the 'id' parameter as an identifier. The description adds context by specifying it is the opportunity ID, which is helpful but not essential 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 uses a specific verb 'récupère' (retrieves) and resource 'actions' associated with an opportunity, clearly listing types (calls, emails, meetings, notes). It distinguishes from sibling tools like boond_opportunities_get and boond_candidates_actions by focusing on actions for opportunities.

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 implies the tool is used to get actions for an opportunity, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives like boond_actions_search which might offer filtered results.

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