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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read behavior is covered. The description adds useful return detail (per-day hours, reviewer) and the underlying endpoint, but does not elaborate on permissions, rate limits, or edge-case behavior beyond that.

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 compact sentences front-load the core purpose and then add the endpoint. Every piece of information earns its place with no redundancy.

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 simple read-only lookup with one parameter, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the call returns (per-day hours and reviewer), which compensates for the missing output schema.

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%: the single absence_id parameter is already documented as 'Shiftbase absence (absentee) id.' The description does not add format or constraint details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 it returns one absence by id, with the per-day hours and reviewer, which is a specific resource and scope. It implicitly distinguishes itself from list_absences by being singular, though it does not name the 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?

The 'by id' phrasing implies the tool is used when a single absence id is known, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison to alternatives such as shiftbase_list_absences or shiftbase_get_expected_absence_hours. Usage is only weakly implied.

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