Details d'une absence

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no new behavioral traits beyond what the schema and annotations already convey. It is consistent but does not provide extra context such as authentication needs or response shape.

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 exactly one sentence, front-loaded with the action verb, and contains zero redundancy. Every word serves a purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 1-parameter get-by-ID tool with strong annotations, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool does and by what key, while the schema handles parameter details. No output schema exists, but the phrase 'informations detaillees' sufficiently sets expectations. The sibling tool list reinforces the get/search/create/update/delete pattern.

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%, and the schema already explains 'id' as a numeric unique identifier. The description restates 'par son ID' without adding syntax or format details. With full schema coverage, the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's function: retrieve detailed information of an absence request by its ID. The verb 'recupere' is specific and the resource 'demande d'absence' is unambiguous. It naturally distinguishes from sibling search/create/update/delete tools by emphasizing retrieval by ID.

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 implies clear usage context: use when you have a specific absence ID and need detailed information. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the 'par son ID' makes the intended scenario evident. This is clear context without exclusions.

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