Détails d'un contrat

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

Beyond the read-only annotations, the description discloses that an unknown ID returns the BoondManager error as-is and that the tool only accepts an ID, not a name. It also states the response is the JSON contract with attributes and relations as returned by the API. This adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond the structured 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 and well-structured: main purpose first, then usage conditions, alternative routing, a procedural warning, and return behavior. Every section earns its place and there is no redundant filler.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, when to use it, which sibling to prefer instead, how to handle errors, and what the response looks like. An agent has everything it needs to decide and 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 coverage is 100%: the sole parameter 'id' is already described as a numeric BoondManager entity identifier with a validation pattern. The description reinforces numeric-ID semantics and warns against supplying names, but this is largely a restatement of what the schema already conveys. It adds only mild contextual value about ID provenance.

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 and resource: 'Récupère la fiche complète d'un contrat de travail par son ID numérique.' It clearly identifies the tool as a single-record fetch by numeric ID, which separates it from list-style siblings like boond_contracts_search and boond_resources_contracts. The resource and action are 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?

The description explicitly tells when to use it: after boond_contracts_search or boond_resources_contracts, which list contracts with IDs. It also tells the user when not to use it, directing to boond_resources_contracts when all contracts for a resource are needed, and notes that an ID must come from a list, never a guess. This is explicit routing against alternatives.

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