List time-off policies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a safe read operation. The description adds the functional detail that the output includes IDs for requests, but no further behavioral characteristics like pagination or filtering are disclosed. This matches the baseline for annotated tools.

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 a single sentence with no redundant words, efficiently conveying the resource and the relevance of IDs. It could be slightly more complete grammatically, but conciseness is excellent.

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 list operation with two optional parameters and full schema coverage, the description, title, and annotations together provide adequate context. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the mention that IDs are returned. No critical information is missing.

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?

Both parameters (status, workspace_id) have complete descriptions in the schema (100% coverage). The description does not add any parameter-specific guidance, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 names the resource (time-off policies) and its scope (vacation, sick leave, other) and notes that the returned IDs are needed for requests. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'list', relying on the title for the action. It distinguishes from sibling list_time_off_requests by focusing on policies rather than requests.

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 phrase 'with the ids a request needs' implies this tool should be used when retrieving policy IDs before creating a time-off request. It provides clear context but does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, aligning with a score of 4.

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