Rechercher des positionnements

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is already well covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by revealing the non-obvious mapping between the *Id parameters and the keyword reference format the API actually accepts, which is valuable implementation detail not visible from the schema annotations alone.

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-organized: a purpose statement, a key behavioral note about the API's keyword-reference filtering, an Args list covering all parameters, and a Returns line. Every sentence adds information; there is no filler or redundancy. The critical filtering quirk is front-loaded right after the purpose.

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 search tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is appropriately complete. It covers the search mechanism, the conversion of all filter parameters, pagination, and the return type. The fields projection parameter is documented in the schema. This is a well-specified read-only search tool with annotations confirming the non-destructive, read-only nature.

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 each parameter is already documented in the schema. However, the description adds genuine value by explaining the conversion mechanism (each *Id parameter is transparently translated to a keyword reference), which explains WHY these filters work and how they relate to the keywords parameter. This goes beyond what the individual schema descriptions state.

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 positionings (placement of candidates/resources on projects/opportunities) with a specific verb+resource. The parenthetical definition of what 'positionnements' means distinguishes it from sibling tools, and it directly addresses the notable quirk that filtering is done via keyword references rather than dedicated API filter params.

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 explains when to use this tool and the critical mechanism for filtering: the API has no dedicated filter params, so filtering works through keyword references (AO<id>, CAND<id>, etc.). It clearly states the *Id parameters are automatically converted into these references, which is essential guidance for an agent selecting and invoking this tool correctly.

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