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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description adds the HTTP GET path and single-resource-by-code behavior. It does not explain auth needs, response shape, or query behavior, but the safety profile is covered by annotations.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence states the action, resource, and endpoint with no filler. Every part contributes meaningful 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?

For a simple classified read, the endpoint and code parameter are provided, but because there is no output schema, return-value expectations are absent, and the 'query' object is undocumented. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description should compensate; it only clarifies that 'codigo' is the lookup key, leaving the optional 'query' object completely unexplained. The schema gives names/types but not meaning.

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 uses a specific verb ('Busca') and resource ('Apontamento de horas') with 'por código' as a clear lookup scope, plus the explicit GET endpoint. It differentiates from create/update siblings, but does not explicitly contrast with projuris_consulta_apontamento_horas.

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 context is implied: use this when you have a code to fetch one timesheet. However, there is no explicit when-not-to-use or mention of alternatives like projuris_consulta_apontamento_horas for searching/listing.

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