get_leave

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'retrieve' implies a read operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what format the entries return in, if there are rate limits, or how pagination works (despite having limit/offset parameters). This leaves significant gaps for safe invocation.

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 extremely concise at just three words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and uses efficient terminology. Every word earns its place in this minimal description.

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 retrieval tool with two parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'leave/vacation entries' encompass, how results are structured, or provide any context about the data source or access requirements. The agent lacks critical information for proper use.

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 has 0% description coverage, providing only type information for 'limit' and 'offset'. The description adds no parameter semantics whatsoever - it doesn't explain what these parameters do, their units, default values, or constraints. For a tool with two undocumented parameters, this is inadequate compensation.

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 'Retrieve leave/vacation entries' clearly states the verb (retrieve) and resource (leave/vacation entries), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling 'get_absences' which might retrieve similar absence data, leaving some ambiguity about scope.

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 like 'get_absences' or 'get_calendar_events'. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, context for usage, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage scenarios.

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