Détails d'une feuille de temps

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns day-by-day details and full JSON data, which is useful but not extensive. 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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence earns its place: what it does, when to use it, what to use instead, and what it returns. No fluff.

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 simple read-by-ID tool with one parameter, full schema coverage, and strong annotations, the description is nearly complete. It could mention that the ID must come from a prior search, but that is already implied by the usage guidance. The return value is described at a high level, which is sufficient given no output schema.

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 single parameter 'id' is already described as the unique numeric identifier. The description adds that the ID identifies a timesheet, but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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 states a specific verb ('Récupère') and resource ('les informations détaillées d'une feuille de temps (CRA mensuel) par son ID'), clearly distinguishing it from listing tools. It also names the sibling alternative, boond_resources_timesheets, which helps an agent differentiate.

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 says when to use it ('après une recherche, pour le détail jour par jour d'un CRA identifié') and what to use instead ('Plutôt que : boond_resources_timesheets pour lister les CRA d'une ressource sans connaître leurs ID'). This is clear routing guidance.

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