leave_balance_report

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

The tool is annotated as readOnlyHint=true, and the description naturally implies a read-only report. However, it adds no additional behavioral context beyond that—no mention of data scope, permission requirements, or any side effects. It meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 brief and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a structured parameter list. It wastes no words, though the function signature style (Args:) is slightly unpolished compared to natural prose.

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 omits what the report returns—no mention of columns, aggregation, or format. Since there is no output schema, this leaves the agent guessing about the tool's output, which is critical for tool selection and result processing.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining parameter format (YYYY-MM-DD for dates), fallback behavior for office_id (environment variable), and pagination purpose for per_page. This adds significant value beyond the raw 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 'Leave balance report across a date range', identifying the specific resource (leave balance) and action (report). This distinguishes it from siblings like applied_leave_list or daily_attendance_summary, which focus on different aspects.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or when not to use it. Given the long sibling list, explicit usage context would help.

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