Demandes d'absences d'une ressource

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds minor context by listing absence types (congés, RTT, maladie) and the return type (Liste des demandes d'absences), but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as pagination, status filtering, or authorization requirements.

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 a purpose line followed by Args and Returns sections. It contains no unnecessary filler and is front-loaded with the essential information.

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 is simple: one parameter, no output schema, and strong annotations. The description provides enough to understand its purpose and return type. It could be more explicit about the scope of 'absences' (e.g., statuses, date ranges), but for a straightforward read-only resource report, it is largely complete.

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 coverage is 100% with one parameter, and the schema describes 'id' as a generic numeric entity ID. The description adds specificity by stating 'ID de la ressource', clarifying that the ID refers to a resource entity, which goes beyond the schema's generic description.

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 'Récupère les demandes d'absences d'une ressource' clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb (Récupère) and resource (demandes d'absences d'une ressource). It also lists examples (congés, RTT, maladie...) and is distinguishable from siblings like boond_absences_search because it targets a specific resource's absence requests.

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 tool's purpose is clear: use it to get absence requests for a specific resource identified by 'id'. It implies when to use it (resource-specific reporting) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion cases (e.g., when to use boond_absences_search instead).

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