applied_leave_list

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the burden is lower. The description reinforces that behavior with 'READ-ONLY' and 'only reads,' and adds context about the scope (Phase 1) and that write actions are excluded. It does not fully detail pagination behavior or search semantics, but it adds value beyond the annotation.

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 efficiently structured: one line for purpose, then a bulleted args list, then a note. Every sentence adds value. No unnecessary words.

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 covers purpose, parameters, and behavioral constraints. It could mention the return format (a list of leave applications) for completeness, but given the lack of output schema, it is not essential. Overall, it is fairly complete for a simple read-only list tool.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description explains all four parameters with meaningful context (keyword as optional search, statuses as list of codes with default [0,1], page as zero-based, count as page size). This fully compensates for the sparse schema.

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 the verb 'List' and the resource 'applied leave requests' with statuses. It also explicitly notes 'READ-ONLY view,' setting it apart from write tools. Among siblings, it is distinct from leave balance or attendance reports, focusing on applied requests.

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 explains when to use this tool (to view applied leave requests) and explicitly states what it does NOT do: 'Applying/approving/rejecting leave is a write action and is intentionally NOT available.' However, it does not directly compare to sibling tools like leave_balance_report, which could be complementary.

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