Rechercher des validations

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, open-world. The description adds that startMonth and endMonth are required and notes keyword prefixes. However, it doesn't disclose pagination behavior or explain validationAlerts parameter. Adequate but not rich.

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?

Description is concise, starts with main purpose, then a warning and param list. Structured for easy scanning. Duplicates schema info slightly but overall efficient.

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?

Given 9 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the required params and common filters, but leaves validationAlerts and resourceTypes unexplained. Return value is vague ('Liste des validations') and pagination details are in schema but not highlighted. Adequate for a search tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description repeats param info but adds example for startMonth and keyword prefixes. Does not significantly enhance understanding beyond 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 clearly states it searches for pending validations in BoondManager and lists document types. However, the phrase 'en attente' may mislead as the tool can also return validated/rejected states via validationStates parameter. Still, the verb-resource pairing is specific and distinguishes it from sibling search tools.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like boond_absences_search or boond_expenses_search. Usage is implied by the resource name and document types, but no when-not-to or alternative mentions.

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