absence_overview

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses composition of approved leaves, pending requests, headcount, the coverage-threshold formula, and timezone handling, making the read-only reporting behavior clear. It could explicitly state 'does not modify data', but the 'Report' framing and algorithm details provide strong transparency.

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 compact and well-organized: a title line, a synthesizing body, and an Args section. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 an output schema is present and all parameters are optional with defaults, the description is complete for invocation. It explains what the tool returns (calendar, risk flags, verdict), parameter semantics, and the underlying data sources.

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?

Input schema provides names and defaults but zero descriptions. The description compensates fully: days as look-ahead window, coverage_threshold as department-share threshold, and timezone_offset as UTC offset for 'today'. This adds high-value meaning beyond the schema.

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 begins with 'Report who is off and where coverage is thin', a specific verb+resource+outcome. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on absence/coverage, and details the exact sources and outputs (calendar, flags, verdict).

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 positions itself as a one-call composite for absence and coverage needs, explaining what it combines. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended use case is clear and no sibling tool covers absences.

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