get_leave_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states that the tool returns a list of leave history entries but does not disclose behavior for invalid employee IDs, permission requirements, or potential errors. It is a simple read operation, but the description offers minimal transparency beyond the basic return type.

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 compact and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by structured Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 simple read-only tool with one parameter and an output schema (though not shown), the description is sufficiently complete. It states the return type as a list of dicts, which gives the caller a clear idea of the result shape. It doesn't cover edge cases, but for this complexity level, the description is adequate.

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 description adds meaningful context for the only parameter, emp_id, by specifying it is the employee ID for whom leave history is requested. This goes beyond the schema, which only provides the type and title. No other parameters exist, so the description adequately covers the parameter's meaning.

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 'Get' and resource 'leave history of an employee', distinguishing it from related sibling tools like get_employee_leave_balance (which retrieves balance) and get_employee_details (which retrieves general employee info). It is concise and unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The intended usage is implied by its name and description—use it when you need the full leave history of an employee—but it does not explicitly mention exclusions or compare with siblings such as get_employee_leave_balance or apply_leave.

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