Détails 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, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context on the return value: 'Returns : JSON du regroupement (attributs + relations project, deliveries),' which is not present in annotations or an output schema. It also restates 'Lecture seule' consistent 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 three short, purposeful sentences. It front-loads the core action, then provides usage and return information, with no filler or repetition. Every sentence 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?

For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is fully complete: it explains the resource, the source of the ID, how it differs from the list sibling, what the response contains, and that it is read-only. There is nothing an agent needs to call it correctly that 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?

The input schema documents the single parameter id with a numeric pattern and description, giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds semantic provenance by stating the ID comes from boond_projects_deliveries_groupments, which helps the agent know where to obtain a valid value. That goes beyond what the schema provides.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Récupère un regroupement de prestations (facturation multi-prestations) par son ID.' It also clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool boond_projects_deliveries_groupments by noting the latter is for listing groupments and that there is no global list.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Quand : depuis l'ID lu dans boond_projects_deliveries_groupments.' It also explicitly says 'Plutôt que : boond_projects_deliveries_groupments pour la liste des regroupements d'un projet — il n'y a pas de liste globale,' preventing misuse and naming the alternative.

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