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

Annotations already declare this as a safe read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds minor behavioral context by revealing the POST endpoint and the pagination requirement, but it does not explain the response format, error behavior, or whether a filter is required despite zero required parameters in the schema.

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 a single compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then packs the two most important invocation details: the filter parameter and pagination. There is no wasted or repetitive language.

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 read-only filtered query tool, the description covers the essential invocation details: what it searches, how to filter, and how to paginate. There is no output schema, but this is a common search pattern; the description could be more complete about defaults or response structure, but it is not severely underspecified.

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 0%, but the description directly interprets the parameter semantics: filtro holds API-specific criteria, and pagina/quantidade_registros are for pagination. It does not fully detail the filter structure, but given filtro is a free-form object, pointing users to the API criteria is a helpful and appropriate level of detail.

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 action ('Busca' = search), the resource ('Apontamento de horas (timesheet)'), and the method ('por filtro'). It also includes the API endpoint, which removes ambiguity and distinguishes it from sibling tools like projuris_get_apontamento_horas by indicating this is a filtered search operation.

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?

The description gives clear usage context: this tool is for fetching timesheet records using filter criteria and supports pagination via pagina/quantidade_registros. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclude when to use get_ vs consulta_, but the filter-specific wording strongly implies the intended use case.

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