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. The description adds context about the return payload: 'Données JSON complètes de la feuille de temps (jours, heures, statut, détails)', which clarifies what 'detailed' means. This adds value beyond the annotations, though it does not cover error behaviors.

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 with clear Args and Returns sections. Every sentence serves a purpose: the first states the operation, the Args line defines the parameter, and the Returns line describes the output. No unnecessary wording.

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 get-by-ID tool with a single parameter, good annotations, and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the functionality and return content. It does not over-describe and is complete for an agent to decide to invoke it.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with a description for the single parameter 'id': 'Identifiant unique de la feuille de temps'. The description repeats the same parameter text in the Args section, adding no new semantic information. The baseline of 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 the specific verb 'Récupère' (retrieves) and names the resource as 'informations détaillées d'une feuille de temps par son ID' (detailed timesheet information by ID), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like boond_timesheets_search (list) and boond_timesheets_create (create).

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 implies usage when you have a specific timesheet ID and need full details, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search or listing tools. No alternative tools are mentioned, so the guidance is only implicit.

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