List time entries

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds significant behavioral context: wire shape preservation for schema discovery, date format (calendar dates, not UTC), and endpoint selection logic (single-day vs multi-day). No contradictions with annotations.

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 three concise sentences. Each sentence serves a distinct purpose: stating the core function, explaining the schema discovery benefit, and providing date/endpoint details. No superfluous information. Front-loaded with the primary action.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers key context: date behavior, endpoint variation, and schema preservation. However, it does not mention pagination or handling of large result sets beyond the 'limit' parameter. This is a minor gap but not critical for basic usage.

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 80%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the 'to' defaults to 'from' for single-day calls, the 'from' parameter timezone (Europe/Amsterdam), and that 'user_id' defaults to authenticated user. This enriches the agent's understanding of parameter behavior.

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 'Returns time entries for a date range' with a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('time entries'). It distinguishes from sibling write tools by being a read-only list operation. The description also provides implementation details (API endpoints) that clarify the purpose.

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 description implicitly guides usage by explaining the tool's dual role: reading time entries and schema discovery for write tools. It explains date range behavior and API routing but does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or name alternatives among siblings. The context from sibling names (e.g., keeping_add_entry) makes the intended use clear.

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