Time-off balance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that results are bucketed per policy and scoped to a person, but does not mention edge cases like empty results or default-user behavior (though schema covers defaults). No contradiction.

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?

A single clear sentence delivers the core function without any wasted words or redundancy. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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 this simple read-only tool with two well-documented optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the output structure ('under each policy') and purpose. It is complete enough for an agent to use correctly, though it does not discuss traversal or caveats.

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 (user_id and workspace_id) are fully described in the schema, including defaults and fallback logic. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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 clearly states what the tool does: it reports how many days are left under each policy for a person. This is a specific verb+resource (balance per policy) that distinguishes it from siblings like clockify_list_time_off_policies or clockify_list_time_off_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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description merely states the function, without indicating when to prefer it over list_time_off_policies or list_time_off_requests, or any exclusions.

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