Rechercher des feuilles 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 no safety contradiction exists. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by warning that omitting startMonth/endMonth or using YYYY-MM-DD format triggers a 422 error. This is useful API-specific behavior.

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 well-structured with a purpose statement, a warning, a bulleted parameter list, and a return note. It is not overly verbose, though the parameter list partially duplicates schema information. The warning and examples earn their place, making it easy to scan.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it names the resource, lists required and optional parameters, and states that it returns a list of matching timesheets. Given the simple nature of the operation and comprehensive schema/annotations, the description is complete enough.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, patterns, and defaults, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra value by explicitly marking startMonth and endMonth as required and emphasizing the YYYY-MM format caveat, which echoes the schema but reinforces the critical constraint. It also lists examples for date formats.

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 explicitly states 'Recherche des feuilles de temps (CRA mensuels)' which clearly identifies the action (search) and resource (monthly timesheets/CRA). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like boond_timesheets_get or boond_timesheets_create, which perform different operations.

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 provides clear context about when to use this tool: for searching monthly timesheets in BoondManager. It highlights the mandatory parameters and warns about 422 errors with wrong formats. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, such as when retrieving a single timesheet by ID.

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