Rechercher des pôles

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds return format and pagination, but it contradicts the schema with wrong defaults (pageSize default 20/max 100 vs schema default 30/max 500) and omits the 'fields' parameter, reducing transparency.

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 opening sentence is concise and informative, but the Args section redundantly repeats the schema definitions and includes errors. The description is not overly long, but not every sentence earns its place.

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?

With four optional parameters and an output schema, the description should cover all parameters and usage context. It omits 'fields', includes incorrect pagination limits, and offers no guidance relative to sibling tools, making it incomplete for reliable invocation.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description provides inconsistent default values for page/pageSize and fails to mention the 'fields' parameter. This adds no value and introduces contradictions that can mislead the agent.

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 searches poles in BoondManager by keywords with pagination, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tool boond_poles_get, so it is clear but lacks explicit differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this search tool versus alternatives like boond_poles_get. The description only restates the function without any context on selection criteria or exclusions.

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