apply_for_leave

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that working days are computed automatically and checked against remaining balance, and that a request is returned as a dictionary. However, it doesn't disclose what happens on failure (e.g., insufficient balance error), whether this is a mutation with side effects, or auth/precondition requirements.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose first, then supplementary details (date format, auto-computation, return value). Efficient and readable with no waste.

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 5-param tool with no annotations, no enums, and no output schema, it explains the core workflow: date format, auto-computation of days, balance validation, and return shape. It covers the essential behavioral contract well. A minor gap: no guidance on error/failure outcomes, but the tool is otherwise adequately described.

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 but provides no per-parameter details. It does add the key semantic that dates use ISO format (YYYY-MM-DD) and that leave_type/working-days interplay is auto-computed, which helps. But leave_type values and reason usage are undocumented; reason has a default and is optional but that's schema-visible.

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 verb+resource ('Submit a leave request for an employee') and distinguishes the action from siblings (approve_leave, reject_leave, cancel_leave are all management actions; this is the initiating submission). It's clear but doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings in text.

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 implies usage by stating it submits a leave request and mentions balance checking against working days. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives, nor when NOT to use it (e.g., leave already pending). With siblings like approve/reject/cancel, some usage contrast would help.

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