Demandes d'absences d'une ressource

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by explicitly stating 'Lecture seule' and clarifying the return payload is a list of absence requests. It doesn't add details like pagination or ordering, but for a simple read tool the annotations plus the return-type note are sufficient.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a 'Quand' usage line, a 'Plutôt que' alternative line, and a short returns/read-only note. Every sentence earns its place and the key scoping information is front-loaded.

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 full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it returns, when to use it, and how it differs from siblings. It could mention whether the returned list is paginated or ordered, but that is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 single 'id' parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The description confirms the ID identifies the resource whose absences are fetched, but adds no new format or constraint information beyond the schema. Baseline 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 states a specific verb ('Récupère'), a precise resource ('demandes d'absences d'un(e) ressource'), and the lookup key (ID). It also enumerates the absence types (congés, RTT, maladie), which disambiguates it from sibling tools like boond_resources_times_reports or boond_resources_expenses_reports.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool ('pour ne charger que cette section, sans le reste de la fiche') and names the alternatives with their conditions: boond_resources_get for the base record, boond_resources_search if the ID is unknown. This is clear routing guidance.

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