Informations générales d'une ressource

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Récupère' is consistent with those flags. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as noting the data is personal/administrative, but it does not discuss authentication, error behavior, or output shape.

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, with a clear opening sentence followed by concise Args and Returns sections. Every sentence contributes useful information, and there is no redundant filler.

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 resource retrieval with one parameter and strong annotation coverage, the description is largely complete. It clearly indicates the kind of data returned, though the exact response structure is somewhat vague due to the absence of an output schema.

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 fully documents the single 'id' parameter with a more detailed description and pattern. The description's 'id (string): ID de la ressource' adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema.

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 action ('Récupère') and the target ('informations générales d'une ressource'), and it enumerates example fields (coordonnées, adresse, état civil, photo, tags, manager). However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from overlapping sibling tools like boond_resources_get or boond_resources_administrative.

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as boond_resources_get, boond_resources_administrative, or boond_resources_technical_data. The description only states what the tool does without any contextual use cases or exclusions.

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