list-payroll-employee-leave-types

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 describes what information is returned (leave type name, schedule of accrual, entitlement) but doesn't mention critical behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. For a tool with zero 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 appropriately sized with two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and what information it returns. The first sentence states the core functionality, and the second adds valuable detail about the return content. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured for optimal front-loading.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (single parameter, read operation), no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It explains what the tool does and what information it returns, but lacks details about behavioral aspects, error handling, and output format. For a tool with no structured metadata support, the description should do more to compensate.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'employeeId' clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 specific action ('List all leave types') and resource ('for a specific employee in Xero'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'list-payroll-leave-types' (which appears to be general) and 'list-payroll-employee-leave' (which likely shows actual leave taken rather than available types). The description provides precise differentiation through its focus on employee-specific available leave types with detailed information.

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 context by specifying 'for a specific employee,' but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list-payroll-leave-types' or 'list-payroll-employee-leave.' It provides basic context (employee-specific) but lacks explicit guidance on exclusions or comparative use cases with sibling tools.

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