Rechercher des validations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the required month parameters and keyword prefixes, but these are already present in the schema, so minimal new behavioral insight is provided.

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 warning and a bullet list of arguments. While the Args section is largely redundant with the schema, it is concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 has no output schema, so the description should clarify return values more, but it only says 'Liste des validations correspondantes.' It does not explain pagination or the fields projection parameter, though the schema covers these in detail.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions and enums for all parameters. The description repeats the month formats and enum values but does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema, so it stays at the baseline.

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 searches for pending validations in BoondManager, listing document types (absences, expense reports, timesheets). The verb 'Rechercher' and the specific resource 'validations' distinguish it from sibling tools like boond_validations_get.

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?

It provides clear context by noting that startMonth and endMonth are required and lists optional filters like documentTypes and validationStates. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as boond_validations_get.

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