absence_overview

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the tool composes leave and headcount data into a report, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state non-destructiveness, auth requirements, or side effects. It adds moderate behavioral context but remains incomplete.

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?

Description is highly efficient: a one-line summary, a concise list of composition elements, and a structured parameter docstring. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 description covers the tool's inputs, operation (composing approved/pending leave and headcount), and outputs (calendar, flags, verdict). With an output schema present, this level of detail is sufficient for the agent to understand and invoke the tool 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so description must define parameters. It does so thoroughly: days (window), coverage_threshold (risk flag), timezone_offset (UTC offset). Each parameter's meaning and default are clearly explained, fully compensating for the absent schema descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states 'Report who is off and where coverage is thin, in one call.' It specifies the resource (absence calendar, coverage-risk flags, verdict) and action (compose and report), making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like team_workload.

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 checking employee absence and coverage risk but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or exclude certain scenarios. It lacks comparison with similar tools, leaving the agent to infer context from the purpose.

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