Résoudre un nom ou un e-mail en ID

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the field selection strategy (fullName tried in both orders, name, emails), the 10-result cap, the exact behavior for multiple exact matches (isError with list), single match (structuredContent.match.id), and near matches (list without match, confirm with user). It also discloses the return shape. No contradiction with 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 well-structured with clear sections ('Quand', 'Plutôt que', bullet points, 'Returns'). Every sentence earns its place: usage timing, alternatives, field selection, ambiguity handling, and return format. It is dense but not bloated, and the most important usage guidance is front-loaded.

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 complexity (6 entity types, multiple matching strategies, ambiguity handling) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers when to use, how fields are chosen, result limits, exact-match vs. near-match behavior, and the return structure. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and interpret results.

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 is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining how `query` is interpreted per entity type (e.g., 'NOM#PRENOM' order for fullName, free text for people, name for companies) and how `email` is preferred over a label. It also clarifies the `entity` enum's role in choosing the field. Slight deduction because the description doesn't explicitly map each enum value to its exact field, but it adds clear value over 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 states a specific verb ('Résout') and resource (a label or email into a BoondManager ID), and enumerates the entity types it covers. It clearly distinguishes itself from the `*_search` siblings by contrasting resolution vs. filtered list retrieval.

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 says when to use it ('dès qu'une demande nomme une entité sans donner son ID — avant un `_get`, un `_update`, un onglet ou un filtre...') and when not to ('Plutôt que : le `*_search` du domaine quand il faut une liste filtrée...'). This is explicit when/when-not guidance with named alternatives.

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