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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real domain context by enumerating what a movement represents (opening balances and adjustments) and the fields carried (employee, leave type, kind, date, units), which is more than the annotation conveys. It stops short of anything about ordering or scoping, so not a 5.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The core purpose is front-loaded and the disambiguation follows immediately, which is exactly the right ordering for a routing decision.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned fields (employee, leave type, kind, date, units), and the schema fully covers pagination. Nothing an agent needs to select or invoke it is missing.

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 both parameters (limit, cursor) are fully documented in the schema, including pagination contract and the 'never silently truncated' guarantee. The description adds nothing about parameters, so the 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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('leave movements'), then defines exactly what those are ('opening balances and adjustments'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from list_leave_requests, so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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?

Provides an explicit alternative and the condition that selects it: 'For applications for leave use list_leave_requests.' Combined with the parenthetical '(opening balances and adjustments)', the boundary between this tool and its nearest sibling is unambiguous.

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