Get an absence

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: payload/employee numbers and unredacted contact data appear only when include_contact_details is set, which tells the agent the default response is redacted.

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?

Two compact sentences with the identifier and returned fields front-loaded, then the conditional flag behavior. The enumerated field list is dense but each item is informative; nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields and flags the conditional redaction, which is the key behavioral detail. It is nearly complete; only error/not-found behavior and any pagination-free nature remain unaddressed.

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 100%, so both parameters are already fully documented in the schema (including the redaction behavior of include_contact_details). The description restates that linkage but adds no syntax, format, or edge-case detail beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource+retrieval key ('One absence record by its GUID') and enumerates the returned fields, which cleanly separates it from the sibling list_absences. An agent can tell immediately this is a single-record fetch rather than a filtered list.

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 'One absence record by its GUID' implies the single-record retrieval use case and contrasts implicitly with list_absences, but it never states when to prefer this over listing or what happens if the GUID is unknown. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are given.

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