List Employee Absences

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

There are no annotations, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions included fields but omits important behavior: no pagination (the API itself does not paginate, as noted in max_records), potential performance impact of show_linked_request, default ordering, or what happens with no filters. This gap is significant for a tool with 16 parameters.

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, efficient sentence: 'Get employee absence records (leave taken, or TOIL/Flexi leave added).' Front-loaded with the action and resource, it conveys the core purpose and scope without unnecessary words. The second sentence lists included details, earning its place.

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 16 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this is a complex tool. The description provides only a minimal overview and does not explain return formats, record structure beyond a few fields, pagination limitations, or the relationship to leave requests. This is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior without additional exploration.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for all 16 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a high-level summary (e.g., 'TOIL/Flexi leave added') but does not provide deeper semantics beyond the schema. It does not compensate for any schema gaps because there are none, but it also does not elevate the understanding further.

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 and resource: 'Get employee absence records', and further clarifies the scope with 'leave taken, or TOIL/Flexi leave added' and the included fields (reason, status, dates, duration, physician/certificate details, attachments). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_leave_requests, which likely cover requests rather than absence records.

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 explicit usage guidance is provided. The description simply says to get absence records but does not indicate when to prefer this over sibling tools such as list_leave_requests or when not to use it. The use case is only implied, with no exclusions or alternatives mentioned.

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