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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/destructiveHint, but the description adds real behavioral context: it states the notes-exclusion default, that it only reads and changes nothing, and that it needs a Cotlet API key with access to the app. That is meaningful beyond structured fields, though it doesn't cover rate limits or pagination of 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?

Front-loads what the report contains, then the return shape, then behavior and prerequisites in a tight sequence. The closing clause about the agent answering without opening the file is slightly promotional but does add usage intent.

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, the description correctly explains the return value (download link plus row count and totals in minutes), plus auth requirements and the notes default. Nothing material needed to invoke it is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters, including the include_notes default and employee_ids default. The description reinforces include_notes behavior but adds little syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (export time CSV) and enumerates the payload (paid, regular, overtime and double time minutes per shift). This clearly distinguishes it from list-oriented siblings like clockshark_list_time_entries or clockshark_list_shifts.

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 'so your agent can answer without opening the file,' which hints at a reporting/answer use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use against alternatives such as list_time_entries or approve_timesheets. Adequate but not prescriptive.

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