Rechercher le planning des absences

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, which cover the basic behavioral traits. The description only adds 'vue globale des absences prévues' but does not elaborate on response format, aggregation, or other behavioral nuances.

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. It states the action and the return value without 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?

The tool has a small parameter set with full schema coverage, and annotations cover safety. However, the lack of output schema and minimal description of the response structure leaves some ambiguity about the exact data returned.

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 three parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage). The description does not add any additional semantic information beyond what the schema provides, so a 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 title and description clearly indicate it searches the absence planning in BoondManager, a global view of planned absences. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'boond_absences_search', which likely serves a similar purpose.

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 usage guidelines are provided. There is no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'boond_absences_search' or other absence-related tools.

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