get_leave_requests

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read operation and scopes results to the signed-in employee, but does not state permission requirements, whether it returns all/pending/approved requests, pagination behavior, or any side effects.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It directly states the resource, scope, and date filter without any 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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse for an agent to call the tool confidently. It does not explain what a leave request record contains, whether results are filtered by status, or how it relates to similar sibling tools.

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%, so the schema fully documents the forDate parameter (format, default). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific resource ('Leave requests'), scope ('signed-in employee'), and filter ('on one date'). It distinguishes from other leave tools (balance, transactions, stats) by focusing on requests. However, it uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb and does not name or contrast with siblings.

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?

Provides no when-to-use guidance, alternatives, or exclusions. The sibling list contains many similar request-retrieval tools (e.g., get_adjustment_requests, get_partial_day_requests) but the description offers no help in choosing among them.

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