Details d'une absence

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. It adds valuable behavioral context by noting that an unknown ID returns the raw BoondManager error, and that the response is a JSON entity with attributes and relations. This goes beyond annotations and helps the agent anticipate error behavior and response structure.

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 and every sentence contributes value: main action, when to use, when not to use, a warning, and return format. The purpose is front-loaded, and there is no redundant or filler content. It is well-structured for quick agent parsing.

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 get-by-ID tool with high schema coverage and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the return type (JSON entity with attributes and relations) and error behavior. It doesn't list specific fields, but that is acceptable given the typical nature of such tools and the absence of an output schema.

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% with the id parameter described as 'Identifiant unique de l'entité BoondManager (numérique).' The description adds further meaning by explicitly stating the ID must be numeric and must come from boond_absences_search, not guessed. This enhances the schema's baseline and provides necessary usage nuance.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Récupère la fiche complète d'un(e) demande d'absence par son ID numérique.' It distinguishes the tool from its siblings by emphasizing that it retrieves full details by numeric ID, contrasting with the search tool that returns a list summary. The purpose is unambiguous and helps an agent select this tool over other absence tools.

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 when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: 'Quand : après un boond_absences_search' and 'Plutôt que : boond_absences_search si l'ID n'est pas connu.' It also warns that the ID must come from search, not guessed, giving clear operational context. This fully addresses the usage decision relative to the obvious alternative.

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