Rechercher des todolists

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds pagination context and a return summary, but it misstates the pageSize contract (default 20, max 100 vs schema's default 30, max 500), which is actively misleading behavioral disclosure for an agent relying on the description.

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 format is compact — purpose sentence, Args list, Returns line — and easy to scan. However, the Args list duplicates schema content with an error, and the omission of 'fields' makes it inconsistent rather than tightly concise.

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?

With an output schema present and read-only annotations, the description does not need to explain return values in depth, and it gives a reasonable summary of results. The main gaps are the incorrect pageSize values and the omission of the fields projection parameter, which reduce completeness despite good underlying structured metadata.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description's Args block adds no value beyond the schema and introduces an incorrect default/max for pageSize. It also omits the 'fields' projection parameter entirely, leaving the parameter documentation incomplete and partially inaccurate.

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 (recherche) and resource (todolists in BoondManager) with a clear scope (by keywords, with pagination). It is clear and specific, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling boond_todolists_get or name alternatives, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 — this is the keyword-search entry point for todolists with pagination. However, it provides no when-to-use vs alternatives guidance, no exclusions, and does not mention that boond_todolists_get is the appropriate tool for retrieving a single known todolist.

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