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, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the return payload ('Bloc identité et rattachement hiérarchique de la ressource') and explicitly states 'Lecture seule', reinforcing the read-only nature. It doesn't disclose rate limits or pagination, but for a single-ID read operation with full annotation coverage, this is strong.

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 front-loaded: the first sentence states the action and payload, the second gives usage context, the third names alternatives, and the final line summarizes the return and read-only nature. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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, idempotent tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool returns, when to use it, and which siblings to prefer in other cases. There is no missing information an agent would need to invoke 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single 'id' parameter. The description adds value by clarifying that the ID identifies a 'ressource' and that the tool returns only the general information section, not the full record. It doesn't add format details beyond the schema, but with 100% coverage and one simple parameter, the baseline is 3 and the description's contextual framing earns a 4.

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 states a specific verb ('Récupère'), a specific resource ('informations générales d'un(e) ressource'), and enumerates the exact fields returned (coordonnées, adresse, état civil, photo, tags, manager). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming boond_resources_get and boond_resources_search, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Quand : pour ne charger que cette section, sans le reste de la fiche.' It also names alternatives and the condition for choosing them ('Plutôt que : boond_resources_get pour la fiche de base, ou boond_resources_search si l'ID est inconnu'). This is exactly the kind of when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance an agent needs.

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