付与予定の一覧化

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses a non-obvious behavior: if some reference dates fall before 2001-04-01, those are marked as supported:false and the call does not error. This is good transparency, though other behaviors like error conditions are not mentioned.

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 a single, concise paragraph. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and follows with an important edge case. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

The description lacks details about the output format (it says returns a list but not the structure). Also, parameter dependencies like uniformBasisMonthDays being required for uniform mode are not explained, though they are in the schema. Given the tool has 7 parameters and no output schema, more context would be beneficial.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context about the overall purpose and the lower date limit behavior, but does not significantly elaborate on individual parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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 it returns a list of scheduled annual paid leave grants for a specified number of years from hire date, including handling of dates before the verified lower limit. This is distinct from sibling tools like check_attendance_rate or calculate_entitlement.

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 does not provide any explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative recommendations.

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