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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only 'with its details' — it does not say what details are included or how a missing/invalid id behaves, so added context beyond annotations is thin.

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 with zero waste, and the resource plus the id source are front-loaded. The telegraphic style ('One time card by id') is slightly clipped but not ambiguous.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, this covers what it returns ('its details') and how to get the id. The only gap is not enumerating what those details contain, which is minor given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema.

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% and the single parameter is documented in-schema as 'The time card id.' with a positive integer constraint. The description's 'by id' merely restates this, 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 resource (a single time card) fetched by id, and the parenthetical names the sibling that produces ids, which separates it from workyard_list_time_cards. It never says 'get'/'fetch' explicitly, but 'One time card by id' is unambiguous.

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 parenthetical 'workyard_list_time_cards gives the ids' tells the agent exactly where to obtain the required input, which is the key routing decision for this tool. It does not state what to do if the id is unknown or invalid, so it stops short of explicit exclusions.

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