Rechercher des demandes d'absence

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: it explains that resourceId is converted to 'COMP<id>', indicates pagination support (page, pageSize), and states the return format (list of absence requests). No contradictions 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 concise and well-structured: a single sentence stating purpose, followed by a clear Args list and a Returns line. Every sentence is informative and no unnecessary words. The format is easy to scan.

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?

Given the complexity of 6 parameters (all optional) and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: parameter semantics, pagination, and return type. It does not describe error handling or detailed output fields, but for a search tool with annotations indicating safe read-only behavior, this is adequate.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the 'keywords' parameter (search terms) and the conversion of resourceId to COMP<id>. It also specifies the date format for startMonth/endMonth (YYYY-MM). This adds value beyond the schema descriptions.

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 it searches for absence requests in BoondManager. It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like boond_absences_get (which likely retrieves a specific absence) and boond_absences_create. However, it could be more explicit about its role as a list/filter tool.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it mentions parameters, it does not specify scenarios where search is preferable to get or create. For example, it does not state that this tool is for listing or filtering multiple absences, whereas boond_absences_get is for a single absence.

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