Positionnements d'une opportunité

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the semantic clarification that positionings are proposed candidates/resources and notes the return type (a list). However, it does not disclose behaviors like pagination, ordering, error handling, or whether only active positionings are returned.

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: a single purpose sentence plus an Args/Returns block. It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids fluff, though the Args section is somewhat redundant with the schema. Still, it is efficient and easy to parse.

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 one-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the basic purpose and return type. However, with no output schema, it does not describe the fields of each positioning, any filters, or error behaviors. This is a moderate gap that could affect an agent's ability to handle the response.

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 describes the single parameter 'id' with type, pattern, and description. The description repeats this parameter in a French phrase without adding new meaning or constraints. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not elevate it.

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 uses the verb 'Récupère' (fetches) and clearly identifies the resource as 'les positionnements (candidats/ressources proposés) sur une opportunité'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as boond_opportunities_get, boond_opportunities_projects, or boond_resources_positionings, which are scoped to different entities.

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 usage when one has an opportunity ID and needs its associated positionings, but it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternative tools to consider (e.g., boond_positionings_search for cross-opportunity queries). Given the large sibling set, this leaves room for ambiguity.

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