Leave balances

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint:false and openWorldHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the underlying GET endpoint, that results are 'for every employee' (i.e. unfiltered by default), and that values are expressed in account-configured units (hours or days). It does not cover pagination/truncation behavior, so it stays at a solid 3.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and the sentence earns its length by listing the exact metrics returned. It is slightly dense with the parenthetical endpoint, but there is little waste.

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 (allowance, carried over, booked, non-deductible, adjustments, balance) and their units, and all three optional parameters are documented. What is missing is any indication of default scope size or result-limit behavior, so it is not fully 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 100%, which sets a baseline of 3, and the description adds real meaning on top: leave_year accepts any date within the desired leave year (the API maps that date to the containing leave year), which the schema only vaguely calls 'a date in the leave year'. It adds nothing for max_results or employee_code beyond the schema, but the leave_year clarification is a substantive addition.

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 a specific verb+resource (annual leave summary for every employee, per leave year) and even enumerates the returned fields, so an agent knows exactly what this returns. It does not name or differentiate from the sibling list_leave, so it falls short of a 5 that would route the agent among alternatives.

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?

There is no when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no reference to any sibling tool (e.g. list_leave). The only guidance is about leave_year resolution ('today when omitted'), which is parameter semantics rather than usage context.

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