peopleforce_list_leave_requests

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false) already establish safety. Description adds the fact that filtering by employee_id and state is supported, which goes beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior (page, per_page) or potential rate limits. Behavioral details are adequate but not exhaustive.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no redundant words. Every sentence adds distinct value: purpose, usage scenarios, and filter support. Ideal conciseness.

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?

Adequate for a simple read-only list tool: covers purpose, usage, and key filters. Lacks explanation of pagination (page/per_page) and response format (no output schema). With 5 parameters and no output schema, more context would help agents invoke 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 60% (page and per_page lack descriptions). The description mentions support for employee_id and state filters, adding value. However, it does not explain page and per_page (pagination) or leave_type_id, which the schema does describe. The description partially compensates for schema gaps but not fully.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'List' and resource 'leave/time-off requests'. Gives concrete use cases ('who's on vacation', balance queries, approvals). However, does not explicitly differentiate from sibling list tools (e.g., list_employees, list_leave_types), which slightly reduces uniqueness clarity for an agent.

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?

Provides contextual usage hints ('who's on vacation', balance queries, approvals) but offers no guidance on when NOT to use this tool versus alternatives. Missing conditions like 'use list_leave_types for type definitions' or 'use list_employees for employee directory'.

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