rm_get_user_statuses

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds the useful fact that this returns historical statuses and enumerates the status vocabulary, but it does not clarify whether the history is date-bounded or paginated. No contradiction with 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?

One clean, front-loaded sentence states the action, the resource, the scoping, and the domain vocabulary. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with an output schema and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete. It could be slightly clearer about what 'history' includes (e.g., whether current status is included or if a date range is implicit), but this is a minor gap.

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 provides a single 'user_id' parameter with integer or string type and 0% description coverage. The description adds only 'for a specific user,' which minimally indicates the parameter's role but does not explain how to obtain the ID, which ID format is expected, or any other constraints. The description does not sufficiently compensate for the absent schema documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and names the resource ('work status history for a specific user'), and it lists the status values (ITO, WFH, SIC, OOO, VAC, OOF). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like rm_get_user_availability and rm_set_user_status.

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 phrase 'history for a specific user' implies this is the read-only counterpart to status-changing tools, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. There is no direct routing guidance to or away from sibling tools.

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