Anticipation des fins de mission

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, which the description does not contradict. The description adds value by explaining the tool returns a runbook text to be executed via other Boond tools, a key behavioral trait beyond 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 (4 sentences), front-loads the primary function, and each sentence provides unique value: listing purpose, highlighting feature, tool equivalence, and return behavior. No redundancy.

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?

Without output schema, the description explains the return type (runbook text) and that the model should execute referenced tools. This is sufficient for understanding the workflow, though it could be slightly more explicit about the runbook structure.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds meaning by detailing that manager_id accepts 'Prénom Nom' with automatic resolution via boond_resources_search, and that absence defaults to 'mon équipe' via perimeterDynamic. This enriches 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 lists resources with ending missions to anticipate repositioning, highlighting imminent ends without identified relay. It distinguishes itself from sibling workflow tools like boond_workflow_candidats_pour_opportunite by focusing on mission end anticipation.

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 explicitly states when to use: for anticipating repositioning when clients cannot handle MCP prompts. It does not list when-nots or direct alternatives, but the context of siblings and the explicit purpose provide sufficient guidance.

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