Time-off balances

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description goes beyond those by clarifying that only one employee's balances are returned, that YTD usage is included, and that health-related balances are omitted. This adds meaningful operational context without contradicting the annotations.

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?

Three short, purposeful sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, followed by a usage tip and a key exclusion, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with strong annotations and no output schema, this definition is complete. It explains what the result covers, how to project future balances, and which balances are excluded—everything an agent needs to use it correctly.

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 schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage, giving the baseline of 3. The description adds extra meaning for 'asOf' by showing how to use it ('Use a future date to project the balance') and ties 'employeeId' to 'one employee's' balances, which is useful beyond the raw schema text.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get one employee's time-off balances as of a date.' It also defines the scope (one employee) and the data included ('amount used year-to-date'), which clearly separates it from sibling tools like bamboohr_time_off_requests or bamboohr_whos_out.

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 gives direct usage guidance: 'Use a future date to project the balance.' It also warns of an important limitation with 'Health-related balances ... are not reported.' While it doesn't explicitly name alternative sibling tools, the context is clear enough for an agent to know when this tool is appropriate.

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