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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds substantive behavior the agent could not otherwise know, notably that EndTime is null while a timesheet is in progress and that TotalTime is in hours, plus the deputy approval semantics (TimeApproved vs PayRuleApproved). It omits operational details like rate limits and does not explain the paging contract, which the schema only partly covers.

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 purpose and filters are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the field enumeration plus API endpoint follow without filler. The list of record fields is long but earns its place given there is no output schema, though it is dense enough to be slightly harder to scan.

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 usefully enumerates the returned fields and flags the in-progress/nulled EndTime case. Pagination behavior (passing next_start, the 500 cap) is left to the schema only, and no sorting or default-window behavior is stated, so it is solid but not fully complete.

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 all nine parameters are already documented, and the description's mention of time window, employee, area and approval state merely restates those filters. It adds no syntax, format, or interaction guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Search'), a precise resource ('timesheets (actual worked time)'), and the filter dimensions (time window, employee, area, approval state). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling deputy_get_timesheet (singular fetch) and deputy_list_shifts by naming the exact records returned.

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 filter vocabulary ('by time window, employee, area and approval state') gives clear context for when this listing tool applies. However, it never names an alternative such as deputy_get_timesheet for a single record, nor any condition under which this tool should not be used, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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