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

The description adds useful response-shaping context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: staff responses exclude payroll identifiers and leave notes are omitted. This helps an agent understand what data will and will not be returned, though it does not cover authorization or not-found behavior.

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?

The description is two short sentences with no wasted text. The core operation is front-loaded, followed by relevant response-filtering details.

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-record read tool with a fully documented one-parameter schema and readOnly annotation, the description is largely complete. It covers the main operation and response omissions, though it could explicitly point to workfeed_list_leaves for discovery.

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%, and the id parameter is already well documented as an opaque Workfeed ID from a preceding read. The description adds no parameter-specific details, so the baseline 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Read one selected leave.' It clearly implies retrieval of a single leave record and is distinguishable from list-oriented siblings like workfeed_list_leaves, though it does not explicitly name that sibling.

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 phrase 'Read one selected leave' implies the tool is used when a specific leave is already known. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this versus workfeed_list_leaves or how to obtain the required id, leaving usage context to inference.

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