Get Time Off Requests

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 discloses the operation is a read/filter (via 'Retrieve and filter'), and it adds useful context about returned fields including 'available actions (approve/deny/etc.)'. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, permissions, pagination, or response format. It is not misleading but leaves some transparency gaps.

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 purpose, and every sentence contributes. It avoids fluff and conveys the key points (retrieve/filter, return fields, filtering capability) efficiently.

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 takes responsibility for explaining return values, and it does list key fields (id, employeeId, status, dates, type, amount, actions, notes). However, it omits details like pagination, default limits, sorting, or how multiple filtering parameters combine. It is adequate for a simple list tool but not fully complete for a 7-parameter endpoint.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'extensive filtering' but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already documents for each parameter. It reinforces the filtering nature but does not introduce new semantics or parameter relationship details.

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 tool's function: 'Retrieve and filter time off requests.' It uses a specific verb ('retrieve', 'filter') and resource ('time off requests'), and the listed sibling tools (e.g., get-employee, estimate-time-off-balance) are distinct enough to avoid confusion. It fully distinguishes itself from siblings.

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 implies usage for retrieving and filtering time off request records, which is a clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name specific alternatives (e.g., get-whos-out for who is out, estimate-time-off-balance for balances). It lacks exclusion guidance but provides sufficient context.

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