Détails d'un(e) ressource

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: without 'tab', only the base record is returned (not the union of tabs), and an unknown ID surfaces the raw BoondManager error. It also states the return format (JSON entity with attributes and relations). This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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-structured: a one-line definition, a 'Quand' section, a 'Plutôt que' section, bullet points for parameter behavior and error handling, and a final return note. Every sentence earns its place and the most important usage guidance is front-loaded.

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 read-only get tool with 2 parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: when to use it, how the tab parameter behaves, error behavior, and return format. It could arguably mention pagination or relation details, but the API's raw JSON return is stated. The main gap is that it doesn't enumerate all possible tab values, but the schema already lists examples.

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 schema already documents both parameters. The description adds some meaning by explaining that 'tab' targets a specific tab and that omitting it returns only the base record, and it clarifies the ID must be numeric and come from a search. However, this is mostly complementary to the schema rather than essential compensation, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves the complete record of a resource by numeric ID, with a specific verb ('Récupère la fiche complète') and resource. It distinguishes itself from boond_resources_search by noting it is used after a search to get attributes not in the list summary, and from sibling tab-specific tools by explaining the 'tab' parameter behavior.

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 explicitly says when to use it ('après un boond_resources_search'), what to use instead if the ID is unknown ('Plutôt que : boond_resources_search si l'ID n'est pas connu'), and warns that the ID must come from a search, never from guessing. This is clear routing guidance with exclusions.

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