get_my_absences

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

Annotations already cover the read-only/open-world profile, and the description goes beyond them by enumerating the return fields and flagging that returned text is user-provided data rather than instructions (a useful prompt-injection caveat). It offers no pagination, rate-limit, or volume information, but for a straightforward read this is solid context.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then return fields, then arg semantics. Every sentence adds necessary information; there is no filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 supplies the return shape (id, date_since, date_until, type, status, count_days), the safety caveat, and complete arg semantics. Nothing an agent needs to select or invoke this tool correctly is missing.

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 the description must carry the load and does: 'year' is defined as the calendar year to list, and 'absence_type' is fully decoded with the five Clockodo code values, information absent from the schema. No ambiguity remains about how to call it.

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 and resource plus scope ('authenticated user's absences for a year, all statuses'), which cleanly separates it from sibling mutations like add_my_vacation and delete_my_vacation. The added note that the returned id is what delete/adjust operations require further pins its role in the workflow.

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?

Filtering behavior is explicit: absence_type narrows results and 'when omitted, all types are returned.' It also implies the read-then-mutate workflow by noting the id is needed to delete or adjust. It does not, however, name a sibling alternative or state when-not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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