Récap hebdomadaire (moi + mon équipe)

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context: the tool returns a textual runbook that the model must then execute by calling referenced Boond tools, clarifying that this is an orchestration/planning tool rather than a raw data fetch. No contradiction with 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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, the second provides context (MCP equivalence) and the output behavior. Every clause contributes useful information without unnecessary padding.

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 one-parameter workflow tool with no output schema, the description explains the type of output (runbook text) and the required follow-up action (call referenced Boond tools), while naming the included domains. It could be more explicit about runbook structure or which tools are referenced, but it is sufficient for selection and initial invocation.

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 only parameter `semaine` is fully described in the schema (100% coverage), including an example and default value. The description does not add further parameter-level semantics beyond mentioning 'cette semaine', so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a clear verb ('Compile') and specifies the exact scope: a weekly view of past/upcoming events for the user and their team, covering opportunities, projects, absences, and CRA. It also distinguishes itself by framing the tool as the tool-based equivalent of the MCP prompt `recap_hebdo`, separating it from sibling workflow 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?

The description explicitly states the intended use context: it is an 'équivalent en outil' of the MCP prompt `recap_hebdo`, useful for clients that do not manage MCP prompts (e.g., claude.ai). It does not, however, name alternatives or say when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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