Rechercher des pôles

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which fully cover the safety profile of a read-only search operation. The description adds the pagination behavior and the mention that it returns ID, name, and main details. With strong annotations present, the description's additional value is modest - it doesn't disclose any behavior beyond what annotations convey plus the pagination constraint.

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, with a one-line summary followed by a clean parameter list and return-value note. No wasted words. The only flaw is the pageSize default/max discrepancy between the description (20/100) and the schema (30/500), which slightly hurts precision.

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 that an output schema exists and annotations cover the read-only safety profile, the description is reasonably complete. It explains the search capability, pagination, and return format. The discrepancy in pageSize values between description and schema is a minor gap, but the description covers the essential elements for a search tool with good schema and annotation support.

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 fully documents all four parameters. The description does add value by listing the parameters, their defaults (page=1, pageSize=20) and the max pageSize (100). However, note the description says pageSize default=20 and max=100, while the schema says default=30 and max=500 - a factual discrepancy between description and schema. The schema already covers the parameter semantics well, so the description's param listing is somewhat redundant.

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 it searches poles in BoondManager by keywords with pagination. It identifies the resource (poles), the action (search), and the mechanism (keywords + pagination). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like boond_poles_get other than the inherent search-vs-get distinction implied by the name pattern shared across all resources.

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 keyword-based search with pagination but does not explicitly state when to use this vs boond_poles_get or when not to use it. It mentions pagination defaults and maximums, which provides some context, but no explicit exclusions or sibling differentiation. Not misleading, just not fully explicit.

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