get_leave_history

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

No annotations at all, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'get' implying a read, but does not disclose return format, whether it includes only approved leaves, date ranges, or any limits. It gives no behavioral details beyond the verb.

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 very short, one line, and front-loaded with the purpose. It is concise, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently concise. Since it avoids fluff, it at least earns a baseline for conciseness.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what 'history' includes, whether there are any filters, pagination, or typical use cases. The complexity is moderate but the description is too thin to be complete.

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 description coverage is 0% for the single parameter employeeId. The description does not elaborate on what employeeId is or any format requirements. It merely repeats the parameter name implicitly. The description adds minimal value beyond the 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 'Get the leave history of an employee' which is a clear verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_leave_balance (which implies current balance) and apply_leave, but does not explicitly differentiate what 'history' includes (e.g., past applications, approved leaves, status over time). It is acceptable but lacks specifics.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It doesn't mention that this is for historical records, nor does it contrast with get_leave_balance for current entitlements. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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