Get time entry

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by specifying what is included in the response ('with its contact, project, user and billable state'), which is information not present in the annotations or 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?

One sentence with no filler: it front-loads the core action and resource, then lists the returned associations. Every word contributes useful meaning.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the return shape at a useful level and the schema covers the optional administration parameter. It does not describe error/not-found behavior or fully enumerate all returned fields, but annotations plus the concise description are sufficient for correct invocation.

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 50%; the administration_id param is well-described in the schema with defaults and discovery guidance, while time_entry_id has no schema description. The tool description's 'by id' clarifies the role of time_entry_id but does not compensate for the low coverage or add details about id format/type or the optional administration parameter beyond what the schema already provides.

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, 'Retrieve', names the resource 'a single time entry by id', and states the included associations (contact, project, user, billable state). This clearly distinguishes it from list_time_entries and other sibling tools.

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 phrase 'by id' clearly implies this tool is for fetching one specific time entry when its identifier is known, as opposed to listing entries. It does not explicitly name the alternative list_time_entries or provide when-not-to-use guidance, so it falls short of a 5.

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