Détails d'un(e) calendrier

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

Annotations already set readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that unknown IDs return the raw BoondManager error, which is useful behavioral context, but does not describe other edge cases (e.g., network failures, response format details). The description does not contradict 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 with clear sections for 'when' and 'rather than', front-loading the primary purpose and usage guidance. No redundant 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 single-parameter read-only tool with annotations covering safety, the description covers the key context: when to use, how to get the ID, and what the return is (attributs + relations). It does not detail the output structure, but no output schema exists, so the description 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the `id` parameter as the unique identifier. The description reinforces that it must be numeric and from search, but adds limited new semantic value beyond that.

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 retrieves the complete record of a calendar by its numeric ID, distinguishing it from the search tool that returns list summaries. It explicitly says it is for after a search to get full attributes, which differentiates it from sibling get 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 guidance: after `boond_calendars_search` to obtain attributes not in the list summary, and explicitly says to prefer `boond_calendars_search` when the ID is not known because this tool does not accept names. Also warns that the ID must come from search, not guesswork.

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