Avantages d'une ressource

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, which describe the behavior. The description adds minimal context by stating it returns a list of advantages. No contradictions, but no new behavioral insights beyond what annotations provide.

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 brief and to the point, with two sentences plus 'Args' and 'Returns' lines. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and input/output, though the 'Args' line partially duplicates schema info.

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 simple read-only tool with one parameter and good annotations, the description adequately covers what the tool does and what it returns. No output schema exists, but the description states the return type (list of advantages).

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%, fully describing the 'id' parameter. The description repeats the parameter description ('ID de la ressource') without adding new meaning, so baseline score 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 specifies the tool retrieves advantages associated with a resource, using a clear verb ('Récupère') and resource type. It lists example advantages. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like boond_advantages_get or boond_advantages_search, which also deal with advantages, though context implies resource-specific focus.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as boond_advantages_get for a specific advantage or boond_advantages_search for filtering. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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