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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: row contents, the scope of people returned, and which weeks are included by default. It does not discuss pagination or ordering beyond 'newest first,' but with an output schema present that is minor.

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-loaded with the core purpose, then scope, then the default behavior. Three dense sentences that each carry information, though the middle sentence about approver coverage is long and slightly packed.

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 an output schema handling return shape and annotations covering the read-only/idempotent profile, the description supplies exactly the missing pieces: what a row means, who is in scope, and what the default status filter does.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning on top: it clarifies that 'submitted' means still waiting and is the default, and that the tools always act as the signed-in approver rather than an arbitrary userId, mirroring the schema's own note.

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 with scope: 'Lists the filed timesheets the signed-in approver may decide, newest first.' It also enumerates what each row contains (person, period, total hours, project breakdown, own-week flag), which clearly separates it from list_time_entries and approve_timesheets.

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?

Answers the natural question 'what timesheets are waiting on me?' and explains the default filter (status submitted = still waiting) plus who is covered (company-wide approver sees everyone, otherwise reports plus unplaced people). No explicit sibling exclusions such as 'use list_time_entries for your own logged time,' so it stops short of a 5.

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