Actions liées à une opportunité

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the types of actions returned (calls, emails, meetings, notes) but does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as pagination, sorting, or potential absence of certain action types. It is consistent with the annotations, adding moderate context.

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 front-loaded, with the main purpose in the first sentence. It includes structured Args and Returns sections. However, the Returns section ('Liste des actions liées à l'opportunité') is redundant with the opening sentence, and the argument description could be incorporated more tightly. Overall, it is efficient with minimal waste.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description's 'Returns: Liste des actions liées à l'opportunité' is the only return-value information. It does not describe the structure of each action, whether the list is paginated, or if any filtering is applied. Given the tool's simplicity and the clear input schema, this is adequate but not complete; an agent might need more detail on the returned objects.

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 fully documents the single parameter 'id' with type, pattern, and a generic description. The tool description adds 'ID de l'opportunité', which clarifies that the id refers to an opportunity, but this is easily inferred from the tool name. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds minimal extra value beyond the existing 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 the tool's function: 'Récupère les actions (appels, emails, RDV, notes) associées à une opportunité.' It specifies the verb (récupère), the resource (actions), and the scope (associées à une opportunité), distinguishing it from generic action search tools like boond_actions_search and from action tools for other entities like boond_contacts_actions.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or direct the agent to other tools (e.g., boond_actions_search for searching all actions, or boond_opportunities_positionings for positioning). The use case is implied by the name and scope, but no comparative guidance is offered.

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