search_absence_codes

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it searches and returns AbsenceCodeID, but does not mention whether searchText is optional (though schema does), whether searches are partial/case-sensitive, or whether multiple results are returned. This is minimal for a search tool.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the action and purpose with no wasted words.

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 search tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and output usage but omits practical details like behavior with an empty searchText or possible multiple results. It is adequate but has room to be more explicit.

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% with a description for searchText, so the baseline is 3. The description adds valuable examples (Ferie, Sygdom) that clarify the expected input format, exceeding the schema's generic description.

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 action (search) and resource (absence codes), provides concrete examples (Ferie, Sygdom), and explains the output's purpose (returning AbsenceCodeID for create_absence_registration). It distinguishes itself from sibling search tools like search_tasks and search_projects by the resource type.

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?

It explicitly ties the tool to the workflow of creating absence registrations ('needed for create_absence_registration'), which tells an agent when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the resource specificity makes the intended usage clear.

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