Compétences techniques d'une ressource

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context by enumerating the types of data returned (skills, experiences, education, certifications, languages, CV), which clarifies the scope beyond a mere read-only operation. It does not contradict any annotation.

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 succinct, front-loaded with the action, and logically structured with Args and Returns. The only minor flaw is that the Returns line ('Données techniques et compétences de la ressource') largely duplicates the opening phrase, but this does not detract significantly from readability.

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 a single parameter and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the returned data categories. It lacks detail on response formatting or handling of missing data, but given the low complexity and rich annotations, it is sufficiently complete.

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?

The schema fully describes the single 'id' parameter with pattern and description, giving 100% coverage. The description repeats the parameter as 'ID de la ressource' without adding new semantics (e.g., format requirements or examples), so the schema carries the interpretive load, meriting the baseline score.

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 a resource's technical profile (compétences, expériences, formations, certifications, langues, CV...), using a specific verb and resource. While this distinguishes it from generic resource getters, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like boond_resources_information or boond_resources_administrative, so it misses the top score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios, exclusions, or differing use cases from other resource-related tools, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name.

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