get_leave_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description's 'Read-only' adds little. It does add valuable behavioral context: 'Requires login' and the caveat that gate-pass flags are only present 'where VTOP publishes them,' disclosing nullable fields.

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 well-structured sentence lists fields and ends with read-only and auth notes. Front-loaded with the core purpose and no wasted words.

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 output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so thoroughly, including verbatim status values and conditional gate-pass fields. It lacks explicit routing to alternatives, but is otherwise complete for a no-arg read tool.

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?

Zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description correctly documents that no input is required and instead details the return shape, which is the relevant information for a no-arg tool.

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 (get hostel leave applications + approval status) and enumerates exactly what fields are returned. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_leave_history and apply_leave.

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 it returns current leave applications with status, which positions it against get_leave_history and get_leave_type_rules, but it never explicitly states when to use this versus those alternatives. Usage is only weakly implied.

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