get_attendance_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool 'fans out' to multiple data sources and returns sections under dedicated keys, which is valuable behavioral context. It does not mention permissions, performance, or exact output structure, but for a read-only aggregation tool, the disclosed fan-out behavior and output organization are sufficient transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence earns its place. It introduces the tool's function, explains the fan-out, and describes the return format, with no fluff or 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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should compensate by explaining return values. It states sections are returned under dedicated keys, but does not specify the exact key names or the structure/content of each section. Given the complexity of a consolidated summary, this leaves some ambiguity about the response format, though it is sufficient for basic invocation.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minor value by linking the optional boolean parameters to the underlying data sections (attendance_abnormal, overtime_records, leave_history), but this largely overlaps with the existing parameter descriptions that already specify what each include flag does. No additional parameter semantics are provided.

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 tool 'Build a consolidated attendance picture for a date range', which is a specific verb+resource purpose. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning fan-out to `attendance_history`, `attendance_abnormal`, `overtime_records`, and `leave_history`, which directly differentiates it from the individual list tools.

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 for a consolidated attendance view across multiple data sources, which is clear context. It mentions the optional inclusion of abnormal, overtime, and leave sections, but does not explicitly state when to use this instead of calling the individual `get_attendance_*` tools. No exclusion or alternative guidance is given, but the aggregation purpose is evident.

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