Détails d'un(e) pôle

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 valuable behavioral context: it states that an unknown ID returns the raw BoondManager error, and that the tool returns the entity JSON as sent by the API. It also explicitly labels the operation as read-only, reinforcing the annotations without contradicting them.

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 well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a 'Quand' section for usage, a 'Plutôt que' section for alternatives, a warning about invalid IDs, and a brief return note. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important routing information is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: when to use it, what it returns, and how to handle errors. The only minor gap is that it doesn't describe the structure of the returned JSON in detail, but since the API response is the source of truth and the tool is a straightforward getter, this is not a significant 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single 'id' parameter as a numeric identifier. The description adds the important constraint that the ID must come from boond_poles_search and not be guessed, which is useful, but it doesn't add much beyond that. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 complete record ('fiche complète') of a 'pôle' by its numeric ID, using a specific verb ('Récupère') and resource. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling search tool by explaining it provides attributes not present in the list summary, which is essential for differentiating among the many boond_*_get/search pairs.

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 says when to use it ('après un boond_poles_search') and when not to ('Plutôt que : boond_poles_search si l'ID n'est pas connu'), and even warns that the ID must come from the search tool, not a guess. This is clear, actionable routing guidance that leaves no ambiguity.

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