Référentiels d'un avantage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it is a GET request ('GET /advantages/default') and that the response is returned 'telle quelle', plus a clear description of the payload contents (pre-filled JSON with included advantage types). This goes beyond 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 concise and well-structured: it opens with the primary purpose, then clarifies when to use it versus a sibling, and concludes with a brief note on HTTP method and return format. Every sentence serves a purpose with 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (a read-only getter for defaults), the annotated safety profile, and full schema coverage, the description is complete. It explains the return value ('JSON de l'avantage vide pré-rempli, avec les types d'avantage inclus'), covers usage timing, and meets the needs for correct invocation.

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 four parameters are documented in the input schema. The description adds no detailed semantics beyond the schema—it only hints that the response is tied to a resource. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Renvoie') and resource ('valeurs par défaut d'un avantage pour une ressource'), clearly identifying what the tool provides. It explicitly contrasts with boond_advantages_search and situates itself before boond_advantages_create, making sibling differentiation unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('AVANT boond_advantages_create') and when not to ('Plutôt que boond_advantages_search pour les avantages déjà attribués à la ressource'). Also notes the read-only nature, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's role.

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