List leave applications

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the response includes certain fields and optional approval logs (controlled by includeLogs parameter). This adds some value but does not disclose pagination behavior or other API quirks.

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 sentence with no fluff. However, given the tool's complexity (16 parameters), it is too brief to be helpful. It sacrifices necessary detail for conciseness.

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?

The tool has 16 parameters, no output schema, and no schema descriptions. The description omits filtering capabilities, pagination (offset/limit), and behavior of optional fields. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 16 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description only mentions fields returned, not parameter meanings or usage. Critical parameters like stage, status, date range filters, and search are unexplained, making it nearly impossible for an agent to assemble correct calls.

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 'List' and the resource 'leave applications', and lists specific fields returned (employee, leave type, balance, approval stage, optional approval logs). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like limu_list_cargo or limu_list_requisitions.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., limu_review_leave_application), nor when not to use it. There is no mention of prerequisites or typical use cases.

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