Rechercher des fils de discussion

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

With annotations declaring readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that results include ID, name, and main details, and reveals a 'fields' projection parameter (though not mentioned in the description text, it's in the schema). The description doesn't contradict annotations.

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 concise and front-loaded with the purpose. The Args section is compact. Slight redundancy exists since the description repeats parameter documentation already present in the schema, but it doesn't waste excessive 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 annotations cover safety, output schema exists for return values, and 100% schema parameter coverage, the description is reasonably complete. It states search targets (name, email, skills), pagination behavior, and return content. Minor gap: the 'fields' parameter for projection is a notable feature not mentioned in the description, which could affect selection decisions.

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 all parameters (page, pageSize, keywords, fields) are documented in the schema. The description repeats keywords, page, and pageSize information but does not mention the 'fields' projection parameter at all. Since schema carries the full load and the description adds marginal value, baseline 3 is appropriate, though the omission of 'fields' in the description is a minor gap given it's a distinguishing capability.

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 the verb ('Recherche des fils') and resource ('fils de discussion dans BoondManager') with keyword-based search and pagination. It's clear what it does, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like boond_threads_get (which would be the singular fetch) — but the generic '_search' vs '_get' pattern is evident from the sibling names.

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 this is for searching threads by keywords with pagination, and the sibling boond_threads_get exists as the singular alternative. However, no explicit when-to-use versus not-use guidance is given, and no exclusions or alternatives are named directly. The context of 'search vs get' is implied by naming convention only.

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