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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=true, and idempotent=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: only DRAFT entries are affected, approval must be enabled org-wide, and the feature is gated to PRO+ tiers.

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 clauses with zero filler; the core action is front-loaded and the prerequisites follow. Nothing needs trimming.

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 one-parameter mutation whose annotations carry the safety profile, the description covers scope, prerequisites, and feature gating. It omits what happens to entries after submission (e.g., whether they become locked or require an approver), which would be nice but is not essential.

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 100% for the single weekStart parameter and its schema description already says 'Monday date (YYYY-MM-DD) of the week to submit.' The description's restatement of the same format adds no meaning 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+scope: 'Submit all DRAFT timesheet entries for a given week.' The word 'week' and 'all DRAFT entries' implicitly separates it from the single-entry sibling submit_timesheet, but the description never names that sibling to make the distinction explicit.

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 prerequisites ('Requires the org's timesheet approval to be enabled', 'Feature: timeTracking (PRO+)') which tell the agent when the tool is even usable, but it never routes between alternatives such as submit_timesheet for a single entry or the approve/reject week siblings.

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