Détails d'une feuille de temps

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 useful behavioral context by specifying the return content: 'Données JSON complètes de la feuille de temps (jours, heures, statut, détails).' No contradiction with annotations.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses clear labeled sections ('Quand', 'Plutôt que', 'Args', 'Returns'). Every sentence earns its place and none are redundant.

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 simple one-parameter getter with strong annotations and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains when to call it, what distinguishes it from the relevant sibling, and what kind of data will be returned. An agent has enough context to invoke it correctly.

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 schema already fully documents the single 'id' parameter. The description repeats the same meaning ('Identifiant unique de la feuille de temps') without adding format, source, or validation details beyond the schema.

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 and resource: 'Récupère les informations détaillées d'une feuille de temps par son ID.' It clearly distinguishes this get-by-ID tool from listing/search tools by emphasizing the day-by-day detail of an identified CRA.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Quand : après une recherche, pour le détail jour par jour d'un CRA identifié' and 'Plutôt que : boond_resources_timesheets pour lister les CRA d'une ressource sans connaître leurs ID.' This tells an agent exactly when to use it and which sibling to prefer instead.

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