get_leave_balance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no confirmation that it is a read-only operation, no mention of auth/session requirements, no indication of whether the balance is broken down per leave type or accrued vs. available. For a tool with zero structured safety metadata, this is a significant gap.

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?

A single short sentence with no waste, front-loading the resource and scope. It is arguably under-specified rather than over-long, but on structure and economy it 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?

For a simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It leaves open what the 'summary' contains and in what granularity, which is the main missing piece for an agent deciding between this and get_leave_stats.

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% and there is a single optional 'forDate' parameter fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or default behavior beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states the resource (time-off balance) and scope (signed-in employee), telling an agent this returns remaining leave rather than requests or transactions. However, it is a noun phrase that largely restates the tool name, and it doesn't distinguish itself from close siblings such as get_leave_stats or get_leave_plan_status.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the many leave-related siblings (get_leave_stats, get_leave_requests, get_leave_plan_status, get_pending_leave_encashment). The only implicit guidance is that it is scoped to the signed-in employee, leaving the agent to infer the use case.

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