Détails d'une période d'inactivité

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior; the description reinforces 'Lecture seule' and adds useful context: the API has no documented list endpoint, and the response is a JSON period with attributes and relations. 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 well structured with clear labels: action, 'Quand', 'Plutôt que', and 'Returns'. Every sentence contributes necessary routing or output information, and the most essential action is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter read tool, the description covers when to use it, when not to use it, alternatives, and the response shape. Annotations cover safety and idempotence, and the schema fully documents the parameter. Nothing essential is missing for correct 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already defines id as a unique numeric BoondManager entity identifier. The description only says 'par son ID' and adds no format or type detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Récupère une période d'inactivité ... par son ID'. It also names example types (intercontrat, formation) and explicitly distances itself from list/reporting/contact-sheet tools, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings.

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 'Quand' section gives explicit trigger conditions: after boond_inactivities_create or when an ID is read from resource relations. The 'Plutôt que' section names the unavailable endpoint and redirects to boond_reporting_resources and boond_resources_get for related needs.

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