Rechercher des demandes d'absence

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile comprehensively. The description adds the useful keyword conversion detail (resourceId converted to COMP<id>) but doesn't describe pagination behavior, result ordering, or what a standard résumé returns. With strong annotations in place, this is adequate.

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 efficient and organized with an Args list matching the actual parameters. The Returns line is concise. Minor redundancy: the description restates parameter optionality that the schema already conveys, and the 'Returns' note is minimal, but overall no wasted sentences.

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 search tool with 100% schema coverage, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description covers parameters and basic behavior. Gaps: it doesn't describe the return shape or size expectations, doesn't distinguish from the closely-named boond_planning_absences_search sibling, and doesn't mention the fields-projection parameter behavior (which the schema does cover). Adequate but not comprehensive.

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%, with each of the 7 parameters well-documented in the schema. The description adds genuinely valuable context beyond the schema: the resourceId → COMP<id> conversion behavior for keywords and the date format requirement (YYYY-MM) for startMonth/endMonth. This exceeds the schema alone.

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?

Description clearly states the verb+resource: 'Recherche des demandes d'absence dans BoondManager' (search for absence requests). It distinguishes from siblings like boond_absences_get (which returns a specific absence) and boond_planning_absences_search (planning absences), though it doesn't explicitly name these differentiators.

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 documents each parameter (keywords, startMonth/endMonth format, page/pageSize) and notes special keyword conversion (resourceId → COMP<id>). However, it doesn't state when to use this vs. siblings like boond_absences_get, boond_planning_absences_search, or boond_resources_absences_reports, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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