Get Leave Request

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists the types of data included (approver action history, approval conditions, extended employee details, file attachments), giving a clear picture of the return content. It doesn't mention permissions or error cases, but for a read-only get operation, this is reasonably transparent.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loading the primary function in the first sentence and adding a helpful pointer to the sibling tool in the second. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

This is a simple single-get tool with one required parameter and no output schema. The description compensates for the missing output schema by enumerating key return components and provides a clear next-step for ID discovery. It could mention error behavior, but the context is sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.

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 schema already describes the only parameter 'id' with 100% coverage ('The unique leave request ID'). The description adds no additional parameter-level syntax or format details, but simply reinforces that the tool fetches by ID. The baseline of 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves a single leave request by ID, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from list_leave_requests by explicitly mentioning the need to find IDs first, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 explicit usage guidance by telling users to 'Use list_leave_requests to find IDs,' which both clarifies when not to use this tool (when you lack an ID) and directs them to the appropriate alternative. This is a strong example of when/when-not guidance.

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