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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered and the description only needs to add context. It does add the shape of the payload (returned fields) but says nothing about pagination, result limits, or default date-range behavior — a meaningful gap for a list endpoint.

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, and the tool's purpose plus returned fields are front-loaded before the filtering options and endpoint. Every clause carries information.

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 100% schema coverage, full safety annotations, and no output schema, the description is essentially sufficient — it names the resource, the returns, and the filters. Only pagination/result-size behavior is unaddressed, which is a minor omission rather than a blocker.

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%, so every parameter is already documented with format and cross-references in the schema. The description restates the filter dimensions (status, dates, category, location, employee) and repeats the status enum values without adding semantics beyond what the schema provides; 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?

Specific verb+resource ('List the business's leave requests') plus an enumeration of the returned fields (employee, category, dates, hours, status, notes) and the underlying endpoint. An agent can distinguish this from keypay_get_leave_request (single record) and the approve/decline siblings 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 description tells the agent it can 'Filter by status, dates, category, location or employee', which implies the retrieval use case, but it never states when to prefer this over keypay_get_leave_request or keypay_report_leave_balances, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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