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

Annotations already declare this is a read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful behavioral detail by explaining that the result includes total time, daily average, and the covered date range, which helps set expectations in the absence of an output 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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence followed by the endpoint path. Every element earns its place: scope, return contents, optional project effect, and API route.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned: total coding time, daily average, and covered range. It could define the daily-average denominator more precisely, but the core behavior is clear and 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?

The schema already documents the project parameter at 100% coverage with 'Only this project's total.' The description adds meaning by clarifying that the project option changes the scope to that project's creation date, which is more specific than the schema alone.

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 states a specific verb and resource: total coding time since the account or project was created, with daily average and covered range. It clearly distinguishes this all-time total from date-range siblings like get_stats and get_summaries.

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 description gives clear context for when this tool applies: all-time total since account or project creation. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope itself makes the appropriate use case evident to an agent.

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