Actions liées à une ressource

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds that the result is a "Liste des actions rattachées" and confirms "Lecture seule," which is consistent with annotations, but it does not disclose behaviors like pagination, ordering, or any limits, so it contributes useful but not rich context.

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 one-line purpose followed by labeled Quand, Plutôt que, and Retourne sections that are easily parsed. Nearly every sentence earns its place; the only minor waste is "Lecture seule," which repeats the readOnlyHint annotation already present.

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 single-parameter, read-only list tool with a fully described schema field and solid annotations, the description covers when to use it, what it returns, and what it is not. It is slightly light on return-format details (pagination, ordering) since there is no output schema, but nothing would block an agent from calling it correctly.

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% and the schema already describes id as a numeric entity identifier with a digit pattern. The description only says "par son ID," restating the schema without adding format, example, or resolution details. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 names a specific verb and resource: "Récupère les actions (appels, emails, RDV, notes) d'une ressource, par son ID." It enumerates the content (calls, emails, meetings, notes) and explicitly contrasts itself with boond_resources_get and boond_resources_search, so an agent can distinguish it from the many similar resource-scoped siblings without opening schemas.

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 has explicit guidance: "Quand: pour ne charger que cette section, sans le reste de la fiche" states when to call it, and "Plutôt que:" names boond_resources_get for the base record and boond_resources_search when the ID is unknown. This is concrete, actionable selection guidance rather than vague preference.

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