Référentiels d'une demande d'absence

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by noting it is read-only, that the raw response is reduced to absence types and request scalars, and that the response includes the resource and workUnitTypesAllowed. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 clear front-loaded purpose, then 'Quand', 'Plutôt que', and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose: what it does, when to use it, what to use instead, and what the response contains.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the Returns section enumerates the response contents: resource, agency, absence types with reference, label, and activityType, plus defaults. Combined with the explicit usage timing and sibling differentiation, an agent has enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema is fully described (100% coverage) and already explains that agencyId is optional and deduced from the resource, while resourceId is required by the API. The description does not add new parameter-level semantics, but with complete schema coverage 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: it returns the allowed absence types for a resource (RTT, maladie, congés payés, with their codes) and the default values of an absence request. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from boond_timesheets_default, so an agent can tell exactly what this tool provides.

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?

Usage guidance is explicit and actionable: use it BEFORE boond_absences_create because workUnitTypeReference is only published by GET /absences-reports/default, and prefer it over boond_timesheets_default when the codes are needed from the absence perspective. It even states that no other tool provides absence types, leaving no ambiguity.

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