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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds value by stating 'It saves nothing' and detailing the return contents: proposed entries with confidence scores, unmatched items, gaps, and overlaps. This goes beyond annotation coverage.

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 compact and front-loads the primary use case, then gives workflow guidance and exclusions. Every sentence contributes useful decision-making information.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description summarizes the return shape enough for an agent to know what to expect. It also handles the follow-up action and exclusions. Some deeper output structure details are absent, but not critical for selecting and invoking the 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 description coverage is 80%, so the schema already explains most parameters. The description adds the useful notion of passing 'raw activity' and the downstream confirmed entry objects, but it does not materially clarify individual parameters beyond the 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 tool's purpose: proposing time entries from raw activity for reconstructing a day or week. It is explicitly distinguished from siblings like time.log_entry and time.log_entries_batch.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use context (reconstruct/catch up from calendar, commits, PRs, tickets, notes), describes the recommended workflow (present, confirm, then log), and explicitly says not to use it for logging a single known entry.

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