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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already communicates that this is a safe read, so the description carries a lighter burden. However, the description adds nothing beyond the annotations — no note on error behavior for a missing id, no indication of whether full detail is returned, and no mention that the id must come from the list endpoint (that hint lives only 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?

A single short sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient but arguably too terse to be maximally useful.

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 single-record read with a fully documented parameter and readOnly annotations, the essentials are covered. The description still lacks any hint about return shape or failure modes, though the absence of an output schema makes that a minor gap.

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%: the single id parameter documents its type union and where to obtain it ('from papierkram_list_time_entries'). The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: 'Get one time entry by id.' This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling papierkram_list_time_entries (plural listing) and from the create/update variants. It stops short of naming siblings explicitly, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus papierkram_list_time_entries or the other get_* tools. 'By id' implies the single-record lookup path, but the agent must infer that from the name and schema alone.

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