list_employee_absence_in_years

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description's 'Retrieving' aligns with the read-only annotation but adds no further behavioral detail, such as pagination, sort order, or return format. No contradiction exists.

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 a single, short sentence that front-loads the verb 'Retrieving' and the resource. It is concise, direct, and avoids redundancy with annotations or schema.

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/list operation with only two fully-documented parameters, strong annotations, and no output schema, the description is complete. It clearly specifies what is retrieved and the required scope, leaving no critical gaps for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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%: both employeeId and businessYear have clear descriptions. The description's 'for given year' essentially restates the businessYear property and adds no new semantics. Since schema fully documents the parameters, this meets the baseline but adds nothing extra.

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 'Retrieving absences of employee for given year' clearly states the action (retrieving), the resource (absences of employee), and the scope (given year). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_absence (single absence), create_absence_for_employee, update_absence, and delete_absence.

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 implies when to use the tool (to list all absences for a specific employee in a business year) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as 'use get_absence for a single absence.' The usage context is clear but lacks explicit guidance against using other sibling tools.

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