Positionnements sur une opportunité

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by stating the tool loads only this section without the rest of the record, and it clarifies what positionings are (candidates and resources offered to the client).

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 compact and tightly structured: a one-sentence purpose, a 'Quand' section, a 'Plutôt que' section, and a returns note. Everything earns its place; the only minor redundancy is 'Lecture seule', which repeats the annotation, but the overall text is highly economical.

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 single-parameter, read-only sub-resource with rich annotations and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it gives the purpose, usage scenario, alternatives, and a generic return value (list of positionings). A tiny gap is that the return list shape is not described beyond 'list', but the tool's complexity is low enough that this is a minor omission.

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?

There is only one parameter, and the schema already documents it (at 100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description's 'par son ID' restates the schema's purpose without adding formatting, constraints, or usage nuances beyond what the schema provides.

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 'Récupère' (retrieves) with a specific resource: the positionings (candidates and resources proposed to the client) of an opportunity by its ID. It also differentiates itself from the sibling tools boond_opportunities_get (full record) and boond_opportunities_search (ID unknown), so an agent can immediately tell it apart.

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 explicitly answers 'Quand' (when) to use this tool: to load only the positionings section rather than the whole record, and 'Plutôt que' (rather than), naming the two alternative tools and the condition that selects each one. This is clear, actionable routing guidance with no inference needed.

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