SF-MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions what data is shown ('approved (or pending) absences'), it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like authentication requirements (implied but not explicit), rate limits, pagination behavior, error handling, or what happens when filters return no results. The description provides basic functionality but lacks operational context.

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 well-structured with purpose first, then filtering context, then detailed parameter documentation. Every sentence earns its place, though the Args section is quite lengthy (which is necessary given the parameter count). The information is front-loaded with the most important purpose statement first.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (11 parameters, authentication required) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the core functionality adequately. However, for a tool with no annotations and authentication requirements, it should provide more behavioral context about security implications, error scenarios, and operational constraints. The parameter documentation is excellent, but overall context could be richer.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for 11 parameters, the description fully compensates by providing detailed parameter documentation in the Args section. Each parameter gets clear explanation including examples ('e.g., 'DC55', 'DC10', 'DC4''), default values ('default: 200, max: 500'), and usage context ('required'). This adds substantial meaning beyond what the bare schema provides.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('see who is out or taking time off') and resource ('team absence calendar'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on upcoming time off rather than balances or requests. The opening sentence provides immediate clarity about what the tool does.

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 provides clear context about when to use this tool ('See who is out or taking time off in a date range') and mentions filtering capabilities ('Filter by department or manager to see just your team'). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools (like get_time_off_balances or get_time_off_requests).

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