Détails d'un(e) calendrier

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

Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., response format or data included), but it does not conflict with annotations. The safety profile is fully covered by annotations, so a middle score is appropriate.

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 a single, concise sentence that immediately states the action, resource, and key parameter. There is no wasted wording or unnecessary detail.

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 get-by-ID tool with one parameter, strong annotations, and no output schema, the description is sufficient. It clearly conveys the tool's purpose without omitting critical information needed for selection or invocation.

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 schema provides full coverage for the single id parameter with a clear description. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, and the schema already defines the pattern and type. Given 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 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 uses the specific verb 'Récupère' (retrieves) with a clear resource 'calendrier' and scoping 'par son ID'. This distinguishes it from the sibling boond_calendars_search, which is implied to be for searching without an 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 phrase 'par son ID' clearly indicates the tool is for retrieving a specific calendar when the ID is known. Though no alternative is explicitly named, the intended use context is unambiguous, and the sibling search tool is clearly the alternative for finding IDs.

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