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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. Beyond that the description only restates the resource and appends the raw endpoint path (GET /days_off), adding no rate-limit, pagination-behavior, or result-shape context that the annotations don't already cover.

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 sentences with the resource statement front-loaded and no filler. Terse to the point of being under-specified, but nothing is redundant or buried.

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?

Five parameters and no output schema, yet the description covers only the date-range scope. It does establish result granularity ('per date in a range'), but says nothing about what a day-off record contains or how pagination should be driven, which the schema only partially compensates for.

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 start/end/limit/offset/users are already fully documented in the schema. The description's phrase 'per date in a range' loosely maps to start/end but adds no format, default, or filtering semantics beyond the schema, so the 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?

States a concrete resource (employees' scheduled days off) scoped to a date range, which an agent can distinguish from generic schedule tools. However it does not differentiate from close siblings such as rotacloud_list_leave or rotacloud_list_day_notes, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance and names no alternative. With siblings like rotacloud_list_leave, rotacloud_list_leave_requests, and rotacloud_list_day_notes, an agent gets no help choosing between them.

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