search_timesheets

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, yet the description gives no behavioral details, such as whether search is read-only despite the hint, what side effects might occur, or what results contain. With no additional context, the agent cannot anticipate the tool's behavior beyond the minimal name.

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 extremely short (two words), but it under-specifies the tool's functionality. Conciseness should not come at the cost of missing critical information; this is under-specification rather than efficient brevity.

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?

The tool has a complex 'body' parameter defined as an array of objects with no detailed schema, and no output schema exists. The description does nothing to explain how to construct the body or interpret the response, leaving a significant knowledge gap for the agent.

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 provides 100% coverage for all parameters, including body, limit, offset, and order_by, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning about parameter usage, but the schema already handles this adequately.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Search timesheets'), making the core action clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like list_timesheets or get_timesheet, leaving ambiguity about what 'search' adds.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool instead of list_timesheets or get_timesheet. The description lacks context about intended use cases, filters, or exclusions, so an agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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