Check my attendance for issues

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

Beyond the readOnly and non-destructive annotations, the description discloses several non-obvious behaviors: missing punches are suppressed if the record already has that start/end time, unknown break time affects the 12-hour threshold logic, overnight shifts are recognized, and leave/requests are invisible via the API so 'no punches' may be a day off. These details materially affect how an agent interprets results.

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 dense but front-loads the issue list, then moves to caveats and date constraints. It is longer than typical, but the length is justified by the number of distinct checks and the need to explain suppression logic and date defaults; it could be more scannable but contains no obvious filler.

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 read-only checker with no output schema, the description is complete enough: it enumerates the issue categories, default date range, max span, overnight handling, and interpretation caveats such as invisible leave requests. An agent has what it needs to call the tool correctly and interpret the likely results.

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 coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already documented, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it specifies the default range as the 1st of this month through yesterday (with the 1st rolling to the previous month) and states a maximum span of 93 days. This clarifies edge-case date behavior not present in the input schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Check your own punches and working records for issues') and enumerates the exact issue types it detects, from missing punches to rest intervals. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_working_records and get_alerts, which serve different purposes.

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?

Usage is implied by the issue-checking context, and the description gives useful default date range and max-days constraints. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives such as get_working_records or get_alerts, nor does it name exclusions or prerequisites.

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