list-payroll-employee-leave-balances

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it 'shows current leave balances' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires specific permissions, if data is real-time or cached, rate limits, error conditions, or pagination. For a read operation with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by clarifying details about leave types. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for leave types).

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 simple read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and scope. However, without annotations or output schema, it lacks details on return format (e.g., structure of balances), error handling, and behavioral context. It's minimally viable but has clear gaps in completeness.

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%, with the single parameter 'employeeId' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format examples, validation rules). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation effectively.

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 balances for a specific employee in Xero'), with specific examples of leave types (annual, sick, other). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list-payroll-employee-leave' (which likely lists leave applications) and 'list-payroll-employee-leave-types' (which likely lists available leave types rather than balances). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with these specific siblings.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., employee must exist), compare with similar tools (e.g., 'list-payroll-employee-leave' for leave applications), or specify use cases beyond the basic purpose. Usage is implied from the title but not explicitly stated.

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