list_time_entries_by_billing_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It lists valid billing status values but does not describe any other behavior (e.g., pagination, scope across clients/projects, or the effect of the 'top' parameter). Minimal disclosure beyond the status list.

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 short and to the point, but could be more structured by including explanation of the 'top' parameter. It is not overly verbose, but lacks necessary detail.

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 0% schema coverage and 2 parameters, the description is incomplete. It explains billing_status values but fails to describe the 'top' parameter, scope of results, or any other contextual info. The output schema exists but does not excuse missing parameter documentation.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It explains the billing_status values but completely omits the 'top' parameter, which has no description in the schema either. The description adds value only for one of the two parameters.

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 tool lists time entries filtered by billing status, and lists the valid status values. However, it does not differentiate from sibling list tools like list_time_entries, but the purpose is specific enough.

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 on when to use this tool versus other list_time_entries tools (e.g., by client, date range, etc.). Misses opportunity to explain that this is for filtering by status only.

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