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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses role-based visibility (owner/office vs field worker), that labor cost is gated by see_costs, and that voided entries are excluded unless status=void. It stops short of pagination or result-shape details, but the key access and filtering semantics are present.

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 compact and front-loads the core scope before the visibility and cost caveats. Dense but every sentence contributes relevant filtering or access 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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, and the description covers the essential filtering and permission behavior for a 7-param read tool. It is nearly complete, with minor gaps only around shop_id and default behavior.

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 only 14%, so the description must compensate and does so partially: it explains the date/shop-timezone semantics, job scoping, the void status case, and 'by person' minutes. It adds no meaning for shop_id or the granular from/to and person_id behavior, leaving notable gaps at low coverage.

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 clearly states the resource (time entries/timesheets) and the two main scopes: date range within a shop, or a single job. It implies a list/retrieval action and its aggregation (minutes by category and person) distinguishes it from siblings like timesheets_current or timesheets_listRates, though it never uses an explicit verb like 'list'.

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 through the filtering options ('between dates... or on one job') rather than stated. No sibling alternatives are named and there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-to-avoid guidance, leaving the agent to infer that this is the general listing tool.

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