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; the description adds real behavioral context by describing the aggregation granularity (per employee, per time off rule) and that requested as well as taken absences are included. It does not clarify whether pending/rejected requests are counted, which is material for an 'usage' metric.

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?

Three tight sentences; the core definition leads, followed by the use case and filter cross-reference. The trailing 'GraphQL query timeOffRequestUsageStatements' is implementation detail that earns only marginal space.

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 10 parameters, no output schema and required date/type inputs, the description does the necessary work of sketching the returned structure and pointing at the filter conventions. The remaining gap is the treatment of non-approved requests, which an absence report consumer would want to know.

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 already 90%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds value by noting the optional employee filters behave 'as in kiwihr_list_users' (covering team_id/location_id/is_active semantics) and by tying time_off_type_ids to kiwihr_list_time_off_types. It adds no detail on limit/offset/sorting, but the schema already documents those.

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 ('who took/requested how much time off') and even defines the return shape: per-employee request count and used days per time off rule. It implicitly separates from kiwihr_list_time_off_balances by framing the output as usage in a date range, but it never names the alternative explicitly.

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 a concrete usage trigger with an example ('Use it for absence reports ("who was off in March?")'), which clearly tells an agent when to reach for this tool. It stops short of stating when not to use it or pointing to the balances/attendance siblings as alternatives.

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