hcm_get_absence

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation, and the description's 'Get' wording is consistent with that. No additional behavioral context is added, such as behavior for unknown IDs or whether all absence fields are returned, but the annotation meaningfully lightens the burden for this simple read.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It earns its place by naming the resource and the lookup key, though its brevity leaves the burden of context to other dimensions.

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 one-parameter read-only getter with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it communicates the operation and the key. It is not fully complete because it omits what an absence record contains, how to obtain a valid absenceId, and when to prefer search_absences over this direct lookup.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description needed to compensate for the undocumented absenceId parameter, but it only restates that the lookup is by ID. It does not explain the ID format, source, uniqueness, or how to obtain a valid absenceId from a search.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair — 'Get absence' — and adds the retrieval key 'by id', which clearly communicates this is a single-record lookup rather than a search, create, update, or delete operation. It does not explicitly contrast itself with hcm_search_absences, so it stops short of full sibling 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool instead of hcm_search_absences, hcm_absence_balance, or hcm_get_absence_type_balance. An agent must infer that a direct ID lookup is intended, but no context, prerequisites, or exclusions are given.

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