get_staff_holiday_quota

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 implies a read-only operation ('Get') and explains the return values (total, taken, remaining days). However, it does not disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, or potential side effects. For a simple getter, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence contributes useful information without verbosity. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 optional params, no output schema), the description covers the key aspects: what it returns, how to use staff_name, and the year parameter's default. It does not mention error conditions or edge cases, but the schema constraints (year min/max) partially cover that. Slightly lacking in depth but sufficient.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters. The description adds value by explaining the return values (total, taken, remaining days) which are not part of the schema. It also reiterates the usage hint, but the schema already covers that. Overall, it adds meaning beyond the schema.

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', the resource 'staff member's holiday quota', and the scope 'for one year'. It also specifies what is returned: 'total, taken and remaining days'. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_staff_next_holiday' which returns a different resource.

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 description provides a clear usage guideline: 'Omit staff_name to get the calling user's own quota.' This helps the agent decide how to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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