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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the required API-key scope `time:read`, the page-style pagination mode, and the identifier format constraint.

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?

Three short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. The pagination clause is a compact enumeration rather than a padded list.

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 7-parameter list tool with no output schema, it covers auth scope, identifier format, and pagination style. It leaves the sort parameters unspecified (valid columns/directions) and gives no hint about the shape or ordering of returned entries.

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 57%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that taskIdentifier must be a stable tsk_ id and not a task key, which goes beyond the schema string, but it says nothing about valid sortColumn fields or sortDirection values, leaving those unconstrained in both places.

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?

States a specific verb+resource+scope: 'List time entries logged against a task'. An agent can distinguish it from pm_log_time and pm_delete_time_entry by the resource/verb combination, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by 'logged against a task' — a task identifier is required and the tool is scoped to that task's entries. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative (e.g. use pm_log_time to add an entry).

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