Positionnements d'une opportunité

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it returns a list of positionings, which is consistent but not substantial additional behavioral context. With annotations covering safety, the description's contribution is minimal.

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?

Description is extremely concise with two sentences plus Args/Returns format. No unnecessary words; every element serves a purpose. Front-loaded with the main action.

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 tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and what it returns. No additional information is needed for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds 'ID de l'opportunité' which specifies the parameter as the opportunity's ID, providing more context than the schema's generic 'Identifiant unique de l'entité BoondManager'. This clarifies the entity type.

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 'Récupère les positionnements (candidats/ressources proposés) sur une opportunité.' This identifies the specific verb (récupère), resource (positionnements), and context (sur une opportunité). It distinguishes from sibling tools like boond_positionings_get (which gets a specific positioning) and boond_candidates_positionings (which gets positionings for a candidate).

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 for retrieving positionings of an opportunity, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., boond_positionings_search), lacking explicit exclusivity guidance. Still, the context is clear enough for most scenarios.

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