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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes a safe read, so the description's job is to add behavior beyond that. It does: the default exclusion of pending/denied/expired requests is disclosed, telling the agent that a plain call silently drops those records. It does not discuss pagination behavior, but limit/offset semantics are covered in the schema.

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 dense sentences plus the endpoint path. Return fields come first, filtering options second, defaults third - front-loaded with zero filler and no repetition of schema content.

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 an 11-parameter, zero-required read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned, how to narrow it, and the default-filtering trap. Pagination guidance is only in the schema, and no output shape is described, but the field list gives an adequate sketch of the response.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the shared default semantics behind the four include_* booleans (excluded unless asked for), which the schema only states per-flag as 'Include X' without saying what the default is.

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 (list booked leave) and enumerates the returned fields (type, user, dates, hours, status), which is more than the title offers. It also implicitly routes away from rotacloud_list_leave_requests by noting that pending/denied/expired requests are excluded by default, but it never names that sibling 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 clear usage context: filter by date range or leave year, by users, by leave types, and notes the default exclusion of pending/denied/expired requests with the implication that include_* flags opt in. It stops short of naming an alternative tool (e.g. rotacloud_list_leave_requests) for pending requests, so no explicit when-not guidance.

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