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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond that: returned values are scoped to the authenticated user's role, which tells the agent results are authorization-dependent and may differ per caller.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the role-scoping caveat. Every clause carries information an agent can use.

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 does the work of naming what comes back (filter categories plus layout options), and read-only annotations cover the safety profile. Minor gaps remain around the exact response shape, but nothing needed to call the tool correctly is missing.

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% (to/from ISO dates with defaults, account_code with examples), so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description's enumeration of filter categories refers to output, not inputs, and adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 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 and resource ('Lists available filters for the timesheet report') and enumerates the filter categories returned (date range, companies, projects, workers, layout options). It is distinguishable from ExportTimeSheetReportTool by the fact it returns filter metadata rather than a report, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is a discovery tool to call before ExportTimeSheetReportTool to learn valid filter values. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative named, so it stays at implied guidance.

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