list-payroll-employee-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 mentions the tool lists 'all leave transactions including approved, pending, and processed time off,' which adds some behavioral context about scope. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or response format, leaving significant gaps for a read operation.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences that are front-loaded: the first states the purpose, and the second provides usage context. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter usage but lacks behavioral details (e.g., response format, error handling) and doesn't leverage sibling context for differentiation. It's minimally viable but has clear gaps.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the 'employeeId' parameter. The description adds minimal value by restating 'Provide an employee ID to see their leave history,' which doesn't provide additional semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('List') and resource ('leave records for a specific employee in Xero'), making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list-payroll-employee-leave-balances' by focusing on leave transactions rather than balances, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 specifying 'Provide an employee ID to see their leave history,' which suggests when to use it (for viewing leave records per employee). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives (e.g., vs. 'list-payroll-employee-leave-balances'), leaving some ambiguity.

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