Simulation financière 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, indicating a safe read operation. The description merely reinforces this without adding new behavioral context (e.g., auth needs, rate limits, or return format). Given the annotations carry the burden, the description adds minimal value.

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 extremely concise with two sentences and a compact arg listing. It front-loads the primary action and includes only essential information. Every part earns its place, making it efficient for an agent 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 read-only tool with one parameter, the description covers the core function and hints at return fields (margin, CA, costs). While no output schema exists, the description provides sufficient context for basic usage. It could be improved by mentioning that the simulation is for a given opportunity ID, but it is already clear.

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 single parameter 'id' is described in the schema as 'Identifiant unique de l'entité BoondManager' with 100% coverage. The description repeats this as 'ID de l'opportunité' but adds no additional semantic detail (e.g., format, source, or validation rules). Baseline 3 is appropriate here.

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 the tool retrieves the financial simulation of an opportunity, specifying key data like margin, forecast revenue, and costs. The verb 'Récupère' (retrieves) combined with the resource 'simulation financière' makes the purpose specific and distinct from sibling tools like boond_opportunities_get which likely returns basic opportunity info.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as boond_opportunities_get or boond_opportunities_information. There is no explicit context for when it is appropriate or when to avoid it, leaving the agent without decision support.

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