get_leave_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. The verb 'Get' and 'Returns: str' make clear this is a read operation that returns a string, but the description does not explain output formatting, empty-result behavior, or any access requirements. For a simple getter this is acceptable but not rich.

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 short and front-loaded with the purpose sentence. The Args/Returns block is compact and conventional, though it partly duplicates schema information rather than adding new value.

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 one-parameter retrieval tool, the description is minimally sufficient to understand the call shape, but it lacks usage context, parameter semantics, and behavioral details. With no annotations and no output schema shown beyond 'str', an agent gets only the bare minimum.

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 0%, so the description needed to compensate by explaining emp_id, but it only repeats 'emp_id: str', which duplicates the schema's type information. No additional meaning, format, or example is given.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Get the leave history of an employee.' The word 'history' helps distinguish this from sibling tools like get_leave_balance and apply_leave, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus get_leave_balance or apply_leave. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative routing hints, so an agent must infer usage purely from the tool name.

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