hcm_search_absence_plans

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this a safe read operation, and the word 'Search' is consistent with it. But the description adds no behavioral detail beyond that — it discloses nothing about the return format, pagination behavior (despite limit/offset parameters), or what the finder parameter changes in the result set.

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?

At six words the text is short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. The single sentence names the resource and stops; it lacks any operational context and there is no structure to front-load because there is essentially nothing there.

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 four undocumented optional parameters, no output schema, and no enums, the description carries the full burden of explaining the tool, and it does not. An agent cannot confidently infer input semantics or expected return values from 'Search absence plans LOV.'

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it fails entirely. None of the four parameters (q, limit, finder, offset) are mentioned; an agent gets no hint about what q matches against, what finder controls, or how pagination works.

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 states a specific verb ('Search') and a resource ('absence plans LOV'), giving an agent the basic operation. However, 'LOV' is unexplained Oracle jargon that the description assumes the reader knows, and the phrasing nearly restates the tool name, adding little differentiation from siblings like hcm_search_absences or hcm_search_absence_types.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling set includes hcm_lov_finder, hcm_lov_find, and hcm_describe_finder, which are all LOV-related, plus the similar hcm_search_absences, yet the description mentions none of them and provides no exclusions or selection context.

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