Détails d'une validation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is already known. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: unknown IDs pass through the raw BoondManager error, and the output shape is a JSON entity with attributes and relations. This meaningfully supplements the annotations without contradicting them.

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 well-structured with a purpose sentence, explicit 'Quand'/'Plutôt que' sections, a bullet point, and a Returns line. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important scoping information is front-loaded. There is no fluff or repetition of the title.

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 single-parameter get tool with full schema coverage and strong annotations, this description is complete. It explains when to call it, how to source the ID, what happens on an unknown ID, and what the response contains, which is especially important because there is no output schema. Nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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 schema already documents the id parameter as a numeric identifier. The description adds semantic constraint beyond the schema by stating the ID must come from boond_validations_search and must never be guessed, and it warns that invalid IDs produce raw errors. This is genuinely useful value beyond the structured field definition.

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 explicitly states the tool fetches the complete record of a validation by numeric ID, naming the resource and the operation. It also distinguishes it from the sibling search tool by noting it retrieves attributes absent from list summaries. This is a clear verb+resource+scope statement that differentiates it from boond_validations_search.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: after boond_validations_search, to get attributes not in the list summary. It also states when not to use it (if the ID is unknown) and explicitly directs the agent to the alternative, boond_validations_search, including the key limitation that this tool doesn't accept a name.

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