Missing clock events

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds behavioral context by defining what counts as a no-show ('scheduled shift, no clock-in') and a missed clock-out ('clocked in, never clocked out'), which is not in the schema or annotations. It does not mention pagination or output shape, but the core detection behavior is transparent.

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 sentence with parenthetical definitions, and every word earns its place. It is front-loaded with the verb and object, making the purpose immediately clear.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so an agent still does not know the exact shape of returned records. The description also gives no guidance on choosing between this tool and repeat_missing_clock_events. However, annotations cover safety, and the parameter schema handles defaults and bounds, making it adequate for simple invocation.

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?

The schema documents from, to, and location, while the description supplies meaning for the type enum values (no_show, missed_clock_out) by defining them in plain language. It does not discuss the limit parameter or type=all behavior, though those are partly self-evident from schema constraints and defaults. Overall, it adds some semantic value beyond the 60% schema coverage but does not fully compensate for the undocumented parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb, 'List', and identifies the exact resource: no-shows and missed clock-outs, with parenthetical definitions for each. It is clearly not tautological and it clarifies the core subject matter. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings such as repeat_missing_clock_events, so it falls just short of full differentiation.

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?

No sentence explains when to prefer this tool over repeat_missing_clock_events, find_late_arrivals, or employee_attendance. The intended use is implied by the title and description, but no exclusions or alternatives are named. An agent has to infer context from the sibling list.

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