Référentiels d'une période d'inactivité

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value by specifying the HTTP method (GET), the endpoint pattern, and that the response is passed through as-is. This gives useful behavioral context beyond the structured hints 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 and front-loaded: purpose, usage timing, alternatives, behavior, and return type are each covered in compact labeled sections. Every sentence contributes useful guidance, with no redundancy.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains what is returned (empty pre-filled inactivity JSON with types included) and the endpoint. Minor omissions such as error conditions or authentication requirements are not critical given the annotations and simple scope.

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 description coverage is 100% and the only parameter, resourceId, is already described in the schema. The description adds only generic context ('pour une ressource') and does not meaningfully expand parameter semantics, so the baseline score 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 names a specific verb and resource ('Renvoie les valeurs par défaut d'une période d'inactivité') and enumerates the returned fields: types d'inactivité, coût journalier retenu, contrat en cours. It also distinguishes itself from related siblings like boond_resources_get and boond_reporting_resources, so an agent can confidently identify its role.

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 when to use this tool ('AVANT boond_inactivities_create') and explains why ('le type d'inactivité n'est publié que là'). It also names alternatives for different needs, making the usage boundary clear.

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