Détails d'un(e) opportunité

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it returns complete JSON data and supports an optional tab parameter, but it doesn't disclose error behaviors, authentication needs, or default tab behavior. This is acceptable given the annotations but not rich.

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 action, followed by a clear Args/Returns structure. It has no wasted words, though the parameter list duplicates the schema slightly.

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 operation with two parameters, strong annotations, and no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose, parameters, and return format. It doesn't specify edge cases or what 'complete' means, but the low complexity makes this sufficient.

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 input schema already provides complete descriptions for both id and tab, including patterns and allowed values. The description repeats these details without adding new semantics such as default values, examples, or behavioral side-effects, so it stays at the baseline for 100% schema coverage.

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 action ('Récupère les informations détaillées') and the resource ('opportunité') identified by ID, with an optional tab parameter. It distinguishes from search/create/update/delete siblings but does not address the existence of boond_opportunities_information, which could be confused as the same operation.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like boond_opportunities_search. The phrase 'par son ID' implies you must already have an ID, but it doesn't state that search should be used when the ID is unknown, nor does it mention any prerequisites or use cases.

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