list_absences

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states only that the tool lists absences but does not disclose whether it includes drafts, requires specific permissions, or has any side effects. For a read operation, it fails to explicitly confirm that it is safe and non-mutating.

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, efficient sentence with no filler words. The main action is front-loaded, and the scope is stated immediately. While it is minimal, it is appropriately sized for such a simple operation and avoids unnecessary detail.

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 presence of three parameters (including a boolean with non-obvious semantics) and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the meaning of unexplained_only or any return-value specifics, even though an output schema exists. An agent would need to guess about the boolean's purpose and the exact nature of the returned data.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameters. It mentions 'a date range', which roughly maps to from_date and to_date, but it gives no explanation for the unexplained_only boolean parameter. This leaves a third of the parameters without any semantic guidance beyond their names and types.

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 ('List') and the resource ('existing absences') with a scope ('for a date range'). It is distinct from sibling tools like draft_absence or cancel_absence, which imply creation or modification, so an agent can easily tell this is a read-only listing operation.

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. There is no mention of exclusions or explicit conditions, such as 'use this to retrieve absences rather than to create or modify them.' The description relies entirely on the tool name and implied purpose.

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