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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description need not re-declare safety. It adds the underlying endpoint (POST /api/v1/resource/Leave/QUERY) and status semantics, but says nothing about rate limits, default page behavior, or result shape beyond what the schema covers.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and filter set, then the enum mapping, then the endpoint. Dense and free of filler, though the trailing LeaveRule/Start-End clause is dead weight that could be dropped.

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 filtered list with no output schema, the description plus a 100%-covered schema gives the agent everything needed to construct a query: filters, status values, time-window types and pagination. The only real omission is what the response looks like, which is minor for a list endpoint.

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 explicitly defers the status enum to the description ('0-5, see description'), so the status code mapping is genuinely additive. However, 'Start/End are unix' conflicts with the schema, where `start` is a 0-based pagination offset, and 'LeaveRule is the leave type id' references a parameter that does not exist in the schema — stale/misleading text that offsets the gain.

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 and resource ('Search leave requests') plus the four filter dimensions, and the read-only nature distinguishes it from the sibling deputy_create_leave_request. An agent can tell it apart from the create/approve tools without opening any 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?

The filter list implies when the tool is useful (scoping leave by employee/location/status/window), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of what it does not cover, and no named alternative for other leave operations. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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