who_is_away

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares read-only behavior, the filtering semantics that drop pending/rejected requests, the default date window applied when no range is given, and the output granularity of one line per person per absence. It omits permissions/auth expectations and any pagination or timezone handling, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

One dense sentence with the resource and the exclusion rule front-loaded before the range default. The nested em-dash and parenthetical construction is slightly heavy to parse but every clause carries information, so nothing is 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?

For a zero-required-parameter read tool with no output schema, the definition supplies scope, exclusions, defaults, and return granularity — enough to call it correctly. Missing only peripheral details such as whether weekends/holidays or non-working days are represented and how results are ordered.

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 100% and both params already document YYYY-MM-DD format, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by specifying the applied default range (today … +14) when the bounds are omitted, which is meaningful behavior the schema does not express.

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 precisely what the tool returns: time-off entries from absence calendars within a day range, one line per person and absence. That is specific enough to separate it from event- or people-listing siblings without naming them. It falls short of a 5 only because the verb is question-phrased rather than a direct action statement.

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?

It tells the agent what is included (approved or not-subject-to-approval time off) and explicitly what is excluded (pending and rejected requests), plus the default window of today through +14. It gives no alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance, but the inclusion/exclusion rules make the intended use unambiguous.

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