Consultants disponibles pour un staffing

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/destructive annotations, the description discloses a critical behavioral trait: it calls no BoondManager API and reads no data, with the response generated server-side. It also states that nothing is executed by the call and that the model must run the returned runbook, which is essential for an agent to predict side effects and next steps.

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 organized with labeled sections ('Quand', 'Plutôt que', the bullet, and 'Returns'), and the core function is near the front. It is slightly longer than necessary and repeats the no-side-effect point, and the opening 'Identifie' claim is less precise than the later 'Returns a runbook' statement. Still, every section earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description clearly defines the return as a text runbook listing ordered Boond calls with exact filters, and states that the model must execute them. It also covers the no-data/no-API behavior and the conditions that trigger use of this variant. An agent has enough information to call this tool correctly.

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 the baseline applies. The description mentions optional filters by competences and perimeter and notes free-text competences, but it does not add detail beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions. The manager_id resolution and default scope are already documented in 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 opens with a concrete action ('Identifie les ressources internes disponibles pour un staffing'), names the window and optional filters, and mentions sorting and priority profiles. It also distinguishes this tool from the equivalent MCP prompt. However, the first sentence is slightly misleading because the tool actually returns a runbook of calls to make rather than directly identifying resources; the 'Returns' paragraph corrects this, but only later.

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 'Quand' paragraph explicitly states when to use the tool: to run a multi-step staffing scenario without manually chaining tools and filter names. The 'Plutôt que' paragraph names the alternative MCP prompt `staffing_disponible` and gives the precise condition for choosing this variant, namely clients that handle `prompts/get` poorly. This is explicit, actionable usage guidance.

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