Rechercher des positionnements

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, clearly indicating a safe read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context: it states the return type (list of positionings) but does not disclose details like sorting, rate limits, or pagination behavior beyond what the schema provides.

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 (5 lines) and front-loaded with the purpose. It separates the purpose, parameters (Args), and return type (Returns). However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for parameters) but overall efficient.

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?

No output schema is provided, so the description should explain the return format more thoroughly. It only says 'Liste des positionnements correspondants' without specifying if it's an array, what fields are included, or pagination metadata. Also, it does not clarify how filter parameters combine (AND/OR logic). The tool is simple, but completeness is lacking.

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 input schema already defines each parameter's meaning. The description echoes some parameters (keywords, page, pageSize) but adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema. Baseline score of 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 defines the tool's purpose: searching for positionings (placements of candidates/resources on projects/opportunities). It uses a specific verb 'Recherche' and names the resource 'positionnements'. Among siblings, boond_positionings_create, get, delete are distinct, so this tool's search function is unambiguous.

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?

Usage context is implied: use this tool to find positionings based on filters. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over boond_positionings_get (which likely retrieves a single positioning by ID) or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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