List absences

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations: it discloses pagination behavior (whole API pages of min(100, max_results)), a continuation note, which filters are supported on each endpoint, the documented format-mismatch caveat for date filters, and the redaction behavior governed by include_contact_details. It falls short of explaining what happens when conflicting filters are combined or result truncation specifics.

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 a single dense paragraph covering many facts — record fields, filter routing, endpoint switch, pagination, and redaction — with no headings or bullet grouping. Every sentence carries weight, but the sentence structure is overloaded and the key filtering distinction is buried mid-paragraph.

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 12-parameter, filter-heavy list tool with no output schema and annotations covering only read-only/open-world status, the description supplies the routing, pagination, and redaction context an agent needs. It is not fully complete: it omits the default max_results cap behavior when results exceed the page, and does not confirm whether filters can be freely combined.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the 12 parameters; the description adds real routing value by mapping date_from/date_to to datestart/dateend, distinguishing the system-wide endpoint filters (user_id, group_id, created_since, modified_since) from the three filters on the per-user endpoint, and flagging the date-format uncertainty.

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 (list) and resource (absence records), names the covered absence types, and identifies the endpoint used when partner_user_id is supplied. It does not directly distinguish from the sibling get_absence, though the singular/plural naming and endpoint detail make the collection-level purpose evident.

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?

Usage guidance is implied rather than explicit: it notes that absence_type_id should be resolved via list_absence_types and that partner_user_id switches to the per-user endpoint, but it never states when to use list_absences versus get_absence or list_users. No exclusions, prerequisites, or typical scenarios are given.

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