Contrats d'une ressource

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 reads from /resources/{id}/administrative and extracts contracts because no contracts tab exists, and specifies the return order (most recent to oldest) and that IDs are provided for boond_contracts_get. This goes beyond the 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 structured with headers and a bullet, front-loading the purpose and using each sentence to add value (scenarios, alternatives, API detail, return format). It is slightly longer than minimal but not wasteful.

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?

With no output schema, the description explains the return format (one line per contract, ordering, IDs), the data source and its limitation (no contracts tab), and usage alternatives. This fully equips an agent to call it 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?

The single parameter id is fully described in the schema (pattern and description), and the description only says 'par son ID' without adding new semantic information, so baseline 3 applies.

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 'Liste' with a precise resource 'les contrats de travail d'une ressource' and details (type, dates, période d'essai, motif de fin), and explicitly contrasts with sibling tools boond_contracts_search and boond_contracts_get, so an agent can distinguish it.

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 'Quand' section gives explicit scenarios (current contract, history, trial end), and 'Plutôt que' names the alternatives with conditions, leaving no ambiguity about when to use this tool.

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