Rechercher des pôles

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

The description aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint) and adds behavioral details: supports keyword search, pagination (page, pageSize with defaults and limits), and returns a list with ID, name, and main details. No contradictions.

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 with three clear sections: purpose, arguments, and returns. It is front-loaded, avoids fluff, and every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (simple search with pagination), the presence of an output schema, and the parameter list descriptions, the description covers the necessary information including return structure. No gaps identified.

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% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description restates the parameters and adds minor extra context (e.g., keywords can include name, email, skills) but does not significantly enhance schema semantics. Baseline 3 applies.

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 verb 'Rechercher' (search) and the resource 'pôles' with the context 'dans BoondManager', and specifies search by keywords with pagination. This distinguishes it from sibling 'boond_poles_get' which retrieves a single pole.

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 searching poles by keywords but does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives like 'boond_poles_get'. No when-not-to-use or alternative mentions.

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