list-payroll-leave-periods

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 effectively describes the tool as a read operation ('List all leave periods') and specifies the required input ('employee ID'), but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what happens if optional dates are omitted. The description doesn't contradict any annotations since none exist.

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 with the core purpose. The first sentence comprehensively covers what the tool does, and the second provides essential usage instruction. 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 the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has gaps. It clearly states the purpose and required input, but lacks details on behavioral aspects like permissions, error cases, or return format. Without annotations or output schema, more context on what the list includes (e.g., pagination, sample output) would improve 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 all three parameters clearly documented in the input schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning the employee ID requirement and implying date filtering, but doesn't provide additional context like format examples for dates or how date ranges affect results. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 periods'), target resource ('for a specific employee in Xero'), and scope ('detailed time off periods including start and end dates, period status, payment dates, and leave types'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'list-payroll-employee-leave' by focusing specifically on leave periods rather than general leave 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 'Provide an employee ID to see their leave periods,' which indicates this tool is for viewing leave periods for individual employees. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list-payroll-employee-leave' or provide any exclusion criteria or prerequisites.

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