Compétences techniques d'une ressource

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds no behavioral details beyond repeating the return content (already implied). No mention of authentication, rate limits, or side effects.

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 extremely concise: two sentences clearly stating purpose, parameters, and return value. Front-loaded with the main action, no wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, read-only, no output schema), the description covers the essential information: what it does and what it returns. Could optionally mention that the resource must exist, but this is implied.

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% for the single parameter 'id', and the description merely restates it as 'ID de la ressource'. No additional meaning or constraints are provided beyond the pattern (numeric) in 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 tool retrieves the technical profile of a resource, listing specific data types (skills, experiences, trainings, certifications, languages, CV). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like boond_resources_get (basic info) and boond_candidates_technical_data.

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 implies usage for fetching technical data but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like boond_resources_get or boond_candidates_technical_data. No exclusion criteria or context are provided.

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