Rechercher des feuilles de temps

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits: the API returns a 422 error if dates are incorrectly formatted, and emphasizes that startMonth and endMonth are required. The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which are consistent. The description adds context about error conditions and parameter requirements beyond the 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 extremely concise: one sentence for purpose, one for warning, and a bullet list of parameters. Every sentence adds value, and the warning is front-loaded to prevent common errors. No redundant or filler content.

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 a paginated search with 5 parameters, no nested objects. The description covers the purpose, required params, format constraints, and basic return type ('Liste des feuilles de temps correspondantes'). Given the lack of an output schema, a minimal return description suffices, but more detail about the fields returned would improve completeness. The annotations fill in the rest (read-only, idempotent).

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the required format for startMonth/endMonth and mentions default values for page and pageSize, but these are already present in the schema descriptions. The added value is minimal; it does not provide new meaning beyond what the schema already conveys.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Recherche des feuilles de temps (CRA mensuels) dans BoondManager.' It specifies the resource (timesheets), action (search), and scope (monthly CRA). The sibling list includes boond_timesheets_get, which retrieves a single timesheet, so this tool is well-differentiated as a search/list operation.

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 includes a warning about the required format for startMonth and endMonth, and lists all parameters with examples. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., boond_timesheets_get for a single entry, boond_resources_timesheets for resource-specific timesheets). The guidance is clear for how to use it but lacks comparisons.

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