Simulation financière d'une opportunité

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds the types of data returned (margin, forecast revenue, costs) but does not address pagination, errors, or other behavioral details. With annotations, this is adequate but not rich.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose. The Args/Returns sections are somewhat redundant with the schema but are clearly organized and do not contain unnecessary fluff.

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-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the purpose, parameter, and return content (with example fields). It does not mention error cases or prerequisites, but these are not critical for a straightforward fetch.

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% and the schema description ('Identifiant unique de l'entité BoondManager (numérique)') is already informative. The description's Args section merely restates the id parameter with a more generic label, adding minimal semantic value 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Récupère') and resource ('la simulation financière d'une opportunité'), listing example fields (marge, CA prévisionnel, coûts). This clearly identifies the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from sibling tools like boond_opportunities_get or boond_opportunities_information.

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 for financial simulation data but does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use this tool. No exclusion criteria are provided, so the agent must infer usage from the tool name and description.

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