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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description correctly reinforces a non-mutating read. It adds genuine behavioral detail beyond the annotations ('inclusive' date range, zero-based pagination), but omits whether multiple filters are AND-combined, whether results are sorted, and what the response shape looks like.

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?

One sentence plus a short pagination clause, zero filler, with the filter semantics front-loaded. Nothing could be cut without losing 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 7-parameter, zero-required search tool with no output schema and only a readOnlyHint, the description covers filters and the pagination base adequately but says nothing about default result ordering, whether all parameters are optional, or how an empty filter set behaves.

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 only 29%, so the description must compensate — and it does, covering start/end (inclusive, YYYY-MM-DD), resource, project, status, and the zero-based page convention. The limit parameter's meaning lives only in the schema, and the AND/OR combination of optional filters is left unstated.

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 (Find) and resource (time entries) plus the filterable dimensions: resource, project, inclusive date range, and submission status. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling hubplanner_list_time_entries, so an agent must infer the search-vs-list distinction.

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?

Usage is implied by naming the filter dimensions — an agent can infer this is the filtered query and that list_time_entries is the unfiltered alternative — but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and the sibling is never named.

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