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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: the 365-day window cap, single-page-per-call pagination, and that visibility varies with token permissions. It also scopes out leave categories, health information and notes. Return format itself is not described, but the safety profile is already covered by 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?

Four dense, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the returned metrics come first and constraints after. The opening is a noun fragment with no verb, which costs a little clarity but not length.

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?

With no output schema and six parameters at low coverage, the description does well on scope, exclusions and date limits, but leaves the employee/group filters and pageSize unexplained and never clarifies what the 'differences' figure means. Adequate but with real gaps for a nested-object, cursor-paginated tool.

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 only 17%, so the description carries most of the burden. It only annotates dateRange (365-day cap) and hints at pagination via 'one page per call'; the groupIds, employeeIds, pageSize and next parameters get no semantic explanation at all, so the filter parameters remain opaque.

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?

Names the specific resource and enumerates the exact metrics returned (contracted, attended, scheduled, break minutes plus differences), which distinguishes it from every sibling list_* tool. The verb is only implied by the name rather than stated in the description, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Gives real operating constraints (365-day max range, one page per call, token-permission dependence) but never says when to choose this tool over the sibling tools or what it is not for. Usage is implied by the resource description rather than routed explicitly.

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