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, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value beyond annotations by disclosing the optional tab behavior and the return format ('Données JSON complètes de l'entité'), though it does not address error cases or authorization. With annotations carrying the safety burden, the added context warrants a 4.

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 tightly written: one main sentence, a compact Args block, and a Returns line. It is front-loaded with the primary action and contains no filler or redundant prose, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 two-parameter, read-only tool with a 100%-covered schema and strong safety annotations, the description covers the core operation, tab options, and return format. It could be more complete by noting behavior for non-existent IDs or how it differs from tab-specific endpoints, but given the low complexity, the essentials are present.

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%, so both id and tab are already documented in the input schema, including the valid tab values. The description's Args block merely restates the schema without adding new syntax, format, or behavioral details beyond what is structured. Baseline 3 applies since the schema performs the explanatory heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Récupère') and the resource ('les informations détaillées d'un(e) ressource par son ID'), making the tool's function unambiguous. The ID-based retrieval and optional tab parameter distinguish it from sibling search tools like boond_resources_search and tab-specific endpoints such as boond_resources_information or boond_resources_actions.

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 gives context (fetch full resource details by ID, optionally a specific tab) but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over tab-specific siblings or when not to use it. No alternatives or exclusions are named, so usage guidance is only implied by the ID-based scope and the optional tab parameter.

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