Référentiels d'un regroupement de prestations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the specific HTTP endpoint (GET /groupments/default?project=) and notes 'la réponse est rendue telle quelle', clarifying the read-only, no-transformation behavior. This adds useful context beyond annotations without contradiction.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses a clear structured format (Quand, Plutôt que, Returns). Every sentence earns its place; there is no fluff or 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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and annotations covering safety, the description fully covers what the tool does, when to use it, what it returns, and its read-only nature. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 schema already documents projectId with its description. The description mentions the parameter in the endpoint example but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 ('regroupement vide pré-rempli pour un projet'), lists the contents (prestations regroupables, prix et coûts par défaut), and explicitly differentiates from the sibling boond_projects_deliveries_groupments by clarifying that the latter handles already-existing groupings. This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 provides explicit usage timing ('Quand : AVANT boond_groupments_create') and an explicit alternative with the condition ('Plutôt que : boond_projects_deliveries_groupments pour les prestations et regroupements déjà en place sur le projet'). This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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