Get my attendance alerts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are scoped to the calling user, but says nothing about volume, ordering, or freshness of alerts, which would matter for a list-style read.

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?

One front-loaded sentence: verb + resource + scope first, then the alert-type examples and the optional filter. The bilingual parentheticals are long but carry domain meaning for Japanese HR terms; little else is wasted.

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?

Safety is covered by annotations and the only parameter by the schema, but there is no output schema and the description never indicates what an alert record contains or how results are ordered. That leaves a real gap for an agent consuming the response.

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% and the single month parameter already carries a YYYY-MM pattern and description. The description's 'Optionally filter by month' merely confirms optionality, adding no format or edge-case detail beyond the schema — 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 gives a specific verb (Get) and resource (your own attendance alerts) and enumerates the concrete alert types (missing punches, suspected absence, lateness, 36 agreement, etc.), which is far more specific than the title alone. It stops short of differentiating from the nearby sibling check_attendance_issues, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

'Get your own' and 'Optionally filter by month' imply the scope and the one optional narrowing, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs check_attendance_issues or get_today_status, and no exclusions. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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