list_time_off_requests

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not mention pagination (limit/offset exist in the schema), result caps, sort order, or what the response contains, so it contributes no behavioral context the structured fields don't already carry.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the resource statement ahead of the filter qualifiers and no filler. It is efficient, though the terseness is part of why other dimensions are thin.

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 list endpoint with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It omits pagination behavior, which is the one meaningful gap an agent would want for a list tool, but nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is strictly missing.

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 all six parameters are documented in the schema, including enum values for status. The description's mention of worker/status/date filters merely mirrors the schema and adds no format or syntax detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('List time-off requests') and names the filter dimensions. It is immediately distinguishable from write siblings like create_time_off_request or approve_time_off_request, but it never explicitly names an alternative or contrasting scope the way a 5 would.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus list_time_off_policies or the approve/create time-off siblings, and no exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is only weakly implied by the list semantics; the agent gets no routing help.

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