Rechercher des positionnements

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds context beyond annotations by revealing that the API does not provide dedicated filter parameters and that *Id parameters are converted to keyword references. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and uses a clear parameter list format. It is concise, with no redundant sentences. However, the parameter list is somewhat lengthy due to multiple *Id parameters, but the structure remains organized.

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 complexity (9 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the filter mechanism and pagination well. However, it lacks details about the return structure beyond 'Liste des positionnements correspondants'. Additional information on sorting, default behavior, or example usage would improve completeness.

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%, but the description adds meaning by explaining the keyword parameter's role in referencing entities and the automatic conversion of *Id parameters. This goes beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions and clarifies the underlying API behavior, which is valuable for correct invocation.

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's purpose: searching for positionings (placement of candidates/resources on projects/opportunities) in BoondManager. The verb 'Rechercher' and the specific resource 'positionnements' make it unambiguous, and it is distinct from sibling search tools like boond_candidates_search or boond_opportunities_search.

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 explains how filtering works given the API's lack of dedicated filter parameters, stating that keyword references (AO<id>, CAND<id>, etc.) and automatic conversion of *Id parameters are used. While it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, it provides clear instructions on usage and filter mechanics. A small deduction for not contrasting with other search tools.

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