Informations générales d'une opportunité

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds some context by listing example data fields, but does not disclose additional traits such as required permissions, potential errors, or any limitations. This is minimal added value beyond the structured 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, with a clear first sentence stating the purpose, followed by structured Args and Returns sections. Every word is functional with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter, and the description provides enough to understand its basic function. However, it lacks an output schema and the return description is vague ('Données générales'), while the ellipsis suggests incomplete information. It also does not clarify the distinction from boond_opportunities_get, leaving a contextual gap for tool selection.

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 fully documents the 'id' parameter with pattern and description, achieving 100% coverage. The description merely repeats 'ID de l'opportunité' without adding new meaning. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 it retrieves general information about an opportunity (client, dates, amount, probability, status), using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling tool 'boond_opportunities_get', which may serve a similar or overlapping purpose.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or how it differs from boond_opportunities_get or boond_opportunities_search. The agent is left without context to choose it over siblings.

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