List time-off requests

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

With no annotations provided, the description correctly calls out that this tool is read-only ('never files a request'). It does not mention pagination, ordering, or date range behavior, but the core behavioral trait (non-destructive) is well communicated.

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?

Two concise sentences that front-load the purpose and quickly cover the key details (status options and read-only nature). Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

While the tool is simple, there is no output schema and the description does not mention what fields are returned besides status. It also lacks mention of pagination or limits, which would be helpful for a list operation. With only one parameter, the gaps are moderate.

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 schema covers the single parameter with an enum and description. The description adds the practical tip 'Omit `status` to get all of them,' which provides semantic value beyond the schema by clarifying default behavior.

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 the resource ('time-off requests') along with the specific fields returned (statuses like pending, approved, denied). It distinguishes from sibling tools like request_time_off and cancel_time_off_request by emphasizing it is a read-only listing.

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 explains how to filter by status and that omitting status returns all requests. This gives clear context for usage, though it does not explicitly mention when to avoid this tool or suggest alternatives for specific scenarios.

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