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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: it returns an aggregate total in minutes alongside rows, and results are scoped to "las issues que alcanzas" (permission-scoped). It says nothing about pagination, limits, or ordering, which matters for a list tool.

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?

Front-loads the core read plus the total-in-minutes return detail, then the filters, then the workspace default. Dense but every clause carries information; 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?

With no output schema, 5 params and 20% schema coverage, the description does a solid job on filters and the returned aggregate, but leaves out pagination/limits, ordering, and how multiple filters combine. An agent knows how to call it, not what volume of data to expect.

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 only 20% (only issueId documented), so the description carries real weight: it explains from/to are a date range in epoch ms, userId is the person filter, and workspaceId is the workspace with a defined fallback to the credential's workspace. That compensates well for three undocumented parameters, though exact filter combination semantics are not covered.

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 and resource ("Lee el tiempo imputado") and adds the return shape ("el total en minutos además de las filas"). It is clearly a read operation, distinguishable from the sibling log_time, but it never names log_time explicitly as the write counterpart.

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 context is implied rather than stated: filters are described as optional and the workspace default ("Sin él se usa el de la credencial") is explained, and list_workspaces is named for enumeration. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance versus log_time or the other list_* tools.

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