freee leave balances

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond them: the default-to-current-employee behavior, the 'visible member' access boundary, and the disclosure that unexposed values are reported rather than guessed.

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 compact sentences with no filler; the resource scope is front-loaded, followed by default behavior and the read-only/no-guessing guarantee. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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 carries the burden of describing what comes back, and it does so by naming the three holiday-balance categories and the honesty caveat about unexposed values. An agent still lacks detail on return shape, but that gap is minor against a fully covered schema and strong annotations.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters, including their mutual exclusivity. The description adds only the framing that they select 'another visible member,' which slightly enriches meaning but does not exceed the schema's own documentation.

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?

States a specific verb (Read) and resource (paid-holiday, special-holiday, compensatory-holiday balances) scoped to a single employee's attendance-edit page. This is precise enough to be distinguished from every sibling, none of which return holiday balances.

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?

Explicitly says the tool defaults to the current employee and to use employee or employee_id to target another visible member, which is clear context for invocation. It does not, however, name a rival tool or state when not to use this one, so it falls short of full alternative routing.

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