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 useful context that the response includes a per-day breakdown and the underlying endpoint, but says nothing about error behavior for missing ids or auth requirements.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the return-content detail comes first. The trailing raw endpoint path is mildly redundant with the tool name but still informative.

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 single-resource getter with no output schema, the description tells the agent what comes back (per-day breakdown), which is the main thing the schema cannot convey. Missing only error/not-found behavior to be fully complete.

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% with a single documented request_id parameter, so the schema carries the semantics. The description only restates 'by id' without adding format or constraint detail, matching the baseline 3 for a well-documented schema.

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 (get) and resource (one leave request) scoped to a single id, which cleanly separates it from rotacloud_list_leave_requests. It also adds the return shape ('per-day breakdown') beyond the title, but never names the sibling it is contrasted with.

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?

'By id' implies you need a known request_id, so usage is inferable, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus rotacloud_list_leave_requests or rotacloud_get_availability, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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