list_leave_requests

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'List' implies a read operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what permissions are needed, whether results are paginated (beyond the schema's limit/offset parameters), what the return format looks like, or any rate limits. For a tool with 6 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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, efficient sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and key capabilities. Every word earns its place - 'List leave requests' establishes the core function, and 'with optional filters for status, date range, and requester' provides essential context without redundancy. There's zero waste or unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficiently complete. While concise, it doesn't address behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, response format, pagination behavior beyond the schema parameters, or error conditions. For a filtering/list tool with multiple parameters and no output schema, more contextual information would be helpful for an AI agent.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly with descriptions, enums, and constraints. The description mentions 'optional filters for status, date range, and requester' which aligns with the schema but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what's already in the structured fields. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('leave requests'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from other leave-related tools like 'get_leave_balances' or 'process_leave_request' by focusing on listing rather than retrieving balances or processing requests. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools like 'list_employees' or 'list_teams' beyond the resource type.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to use 'list_leave_requests' versus 'get_leave_balances' for leave-related queries, or when filtering is necessary versus using other list tools. There's no discussion of prerequisites, context, or exclusions for this tool's use.

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