Positionnements d'une opportunité

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, covering safety. Description adds that it returns a list of positionings, but lacks details on permissions, error handling, or rate limits. Minimal additional transparency beyond 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?

Extremely concise: two sentences plus Args/Returns. No redundant information. Purpose is front-loaded.

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 tool with one parameter and good annotations, the description is adequate. It states the operation, input, and output type. Could be improved by mentioning that the returned list may be empty or pagination details, but not necessary given simplicity.

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 one parameter described. Description adds 'ID de l'opportunité', specifying the entity type more precisely than the schema's generic 'Identifiant unique de l'entité BoondManager'. This adds meaningful context 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?

Description clearly states it retrieves positionings (candidates/resources proposed) on an opportunity. The title confirms this. It distinguishes from siblings like boond_positionings_get (which gets a specific positioning by ID) and boond_opportunities_get (which gets opportunity details).

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 on when to use vs alternatives. The name and description imply it's for getting positionings of a specific opportunity, but no when-not-to-use or alternative suggestions are provided.

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