Time-off requests

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: the 'overlapping' semantics for date range and the visibility limitation to employees the API key owner may see. This enriches the agent's understanding without contradicting 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?

The description is two sentences with no redundant words. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds the critical scope restriction. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is efficient.

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 moderate complexity (5 params, all documented in schema) and rich annotations, the description covers the essential behavioral aspects: the overlap semantics and the visibility constraint. It doesn't mention pagination or response format, but with no output schema, the phrase 'List time-off requests' suffices. It is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful nuance by clarifying that the date range selects requests overlapping the range (not just contained), and explicitly mentions the optional filters (employee, status, time-off type) which map directly to parameters. This goes beyond simple schema repetition.

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 resource (time-off requests), and specifies the key filters (date range, employee, status, time-off type) and the scope limitation to visible employees. It is unambiguous and distinguishes this tool from sibling listing tools by its focus on requests with these specific filters.

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 clear context: it lists time-off requests with optional filters and notes the visibility restriction. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or conditions for when not to use it, but the tool's purpose is self-evident and no competing sibling tool has the same filter set, so an agent can infer usage.

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