Rechercher le planning des absences

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the tool returns the absence planning and provides a global view, but no further behavioral details (e.g., pagination behavior, filtering caveats) are offered.

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, with two sentences and the main action front-loaded. The 'Returns' line is slightly redundant with the first sentence but does not introduce significant waste.

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 without an output schema, the description gives the basic purpose and states that it returns the planning, but lacks detail on result structure or available fields. Given the strong annotations and full schema coverage, the gaps are moderate but leave room for improvement.

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?

All four parameters (page, fields, keywords, pageSize) have complete descriptions in the input schema, achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Recherche') and identifies the resource as the absence planning in BoondManager, further clarifying a 'global view of planned absences'. This clearly conveys the tool's function and scope, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from the sibling tool boond_absences_search.

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 implies a use case via 'vue globale des absences prévues' (global view of planned absences), suggesting it is meant for viewing upcoming absence schedules. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like boond_absences_search or absence report tools, nor does it mention any exclusions.

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