get_leave_history

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It does disclose that only approved and pending applications are returned, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention aspects like read-only safety, output format, or pagination, which are relevant for a 'get' tool with no annotations.

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, tightly worded sentence that gets straight to the point. There is no fluff, and the key information (statuses and date range) is presented clearly.

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 two-parameter read tool, the description sufficiently conveys purpose and scope. It does not explain return values, but the absence of an output schema and the simplicity of the request reduce the need for further detail. The only minor gap is the unexplained 'leave_historyV2' marker.

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 input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (start_date and end_date, including format), so the coverage is 100%. The description's phrase 'within a date range' adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema states.

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's function: 'Get approved and pending leave applications within a date range'. The verb 'get' and the resource 'leave applications' are specific, and the mention of 'approved and pending' and 'date range' distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_attendance_history or get_trip_history.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The usage context is implied by the name and the description, but there is no mention of exclusions or preferred situations compared to sibling tools.

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