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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), but the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: newest-first ordering, aggregate outputs (running timer, per-customer totals), the 30-day default span, and a definition of the 'unbilled' status. It omits pagination behavior and the limit interaction with results.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and how it is ordered, followed by the non-obvious status semantics. No 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?

Without an output schema, the description must describe returns, and it does (entries, running timer, totals). Default window and ordering are covered; only pagination/limit behavior and the role of the ID filters remain missing for a 7-param read 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?

Schema coverage is 57%, with three ID filters (dealId, companyId, contactId) and limit undocumented in both places. The description compensates partly by explaining the 'unbilled' enum value and implying the default last-30-days semantics for from/to, but leaves the remaining filters unexplained.

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?

Specific verb (List) and resource (time entries) with scoping detail: newest-first ordering, inclusion of the running timer and per-customer totals, and a default 30-day window. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like time_log or time_update, but the resource is unambiguous.

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 (a read/list tool for time entries) and a sensible default window is given, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or naming of alternatives such as time_log, time_update, or time_timer_start/stop. An agent must infer the routing.

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