Rechercher des positionnements

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: the API lacks dedicated filter parameters, so *Id filters are automatically converted to keyword references. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand the underlying API behavior.

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 well-structured with a short explanation, an Args list, and a Returns line. It is relatively concise, though the Args section partially duplicates schema descriptions, making it slightly redundant.

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 full schema coverage and strong annotations, the description is complete enough to invoke the tool correctly. It covers the core purpose, API-specific filtering nuance, and return type. It does not describe the structure of each positioning result, but that would typically be in an output schema, which is absent here.

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?

The input schema's parameter descriptions cover 100% of the parameters, including the conversion to keyword references for each ID. The description repeats this at a higher level but does not add new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states 'Recherche des positionnements' with a clarifying parenthetical about placement of candidates/resources on projects/opportunities. It clearly identifies the resource and the search action, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like boond_candidates_positionings or boond_positionings_get.

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 to filter (via keywords and auto-converted *Id parameters), which is useful usage context. However, it does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as the dedicated positionings endpoints for specific entities.

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