Rechercher le planning des absences

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

The readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false annotations already establish this is a safe read operation. The description adds the 'vue globale des absences prévues' context, confirming it returns planned absences globally. However, no pagination behavior, return structure, or ordering details are disclosed beyond what the schema parameters imply.

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 only two sentences and mostly front-loaded, declaring the purpose immediately. One sentence is somewhat redundant ('Returns: Planning des absences' restates the tool's purpose), but the overall length is proportionate for a search tool. Minor waste in the Returns line.

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?

With no output schema and 4 fully-documented parameters, the description is minimally adequate. It confirms this is a global planning view (vs the direct absence search) and mentions planned absences. However, it doesn't clarify sort order, default fields returned, or how this interacts with pagination—gaps that matter for a search tool with 4 parameters and no output schema.

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 all 4 parameters (page, fields, keywords, pageSize) already have descriptions in the schema. The description adds 'vue globale' scope context but no additional parameter details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the documentation burden.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Recherche le planning des absences') and clarifies it's a global view of planned absences in BoondManager. It's reasonably clear, though the title adds little and there are two sibling absence tools (boond_absences_search, boond_absences_get) that the description doesn't explicitly distinguish from.

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 doesn't explain when to use this planning search vs the sibling 'boond_absences_search' or 'boond_absences_get' tools. No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance is provided. The parenthetical clarifies it shows a global view of upcoming absences, which gives some context, but no exclusions or differentiation from the direct absence search tool.

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