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, idempotentHint=true. The description adds context about the returned data categories (competencies, experiences, etc.) but does not disclose potential side effects, permissions required, or response format details. Since annotations cover safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence earns its place: the first states the action, the second lists the argument and return value. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose and return content categories. It is complete enough for an agent to understand what it does, though it could be more explicit about the structure of the response or any limitations.

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 input schema already fully documents the single parameter 'id' with a clear description. The tool description merely repeats that it takes the resource ID, adding no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3.

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, including skills, experiences, education, certifications, languages, CV, etc. The title also reinforces this. Among siblings, it distinguishes itself from other resource tools like boond_resources_information by focusing specifically on 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 provides clear context for using the tool (retrieve technical data for a resource) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like boond_resources_information or boond_candidates_technical_data. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving some ambiguity for the AI agent.

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