get_leave_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds two pieces of non-obvious context: statuses are reported verbatim as VTOP prints them (no normalization) and that authentication is required. It does not discuss result size or pagination for a full-history tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the scope, followed by the field enumeration, usage triggers, and the status/login caveats. Dense but every element earns its place; the long field list is slightly padded but serves as a return-value preview absent an output 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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned fields, the exact status representation, the auth requirement, and the sibling boundary. An agent has everything needed to select and call it 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema baseline is 4 and there is nothing to disambiguate. The field list in the description describes outputs, not inputs, which is fine and not counted against it.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Full hostel leave history') and enumerates the record fields returned (id, type, place, reason, from/to, status, approver remarks, gate-pass state). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_leave_status, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

Gives concrete triggers ('what leaves have I taken?', past-leave questions) and names the alternative tool plus the condition that selects it (get_leave_status for current state). This is explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance.

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