get_time_entry_lookups

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

The phrase 'Fails loudly' indicates that the tool will throw explicit errors on failure, which is a behavioral trait. However, no other behavioral aspects are disclosed (e.g., side effects, auth requirements, rate limits). Without annotations, the description provides minimal but not comprehensive transparency.

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 (one line), which is concise but at the expense of informativeness. It is not well-structured to convey key information first; it starts with a parenthetical version note rather than the core purpose.

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 one optional parameter, an output schema exists, and there are many sibling lookup tools, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the output contains, how matter_id filters results, or what 'lookups' entails. The agent lacks sufficient context to use it correctly.

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 has 0% description coverage for the parameter 'matter_id', and the description does not mention this parameter at all. It adds no meaning beyond what is in the schema (name, type, nullable, default). The agent gets no guidance on how matter_id affects the lookup.

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 'Time-entry lookups' is vague. It does not specify what kind of lookups (e.g., list, search, validate) or what resource is being looked up. The prefix '[Not in LCS /v1]' is an API version note, not a purpose clarification. Among many sibling get_*_lookups tools, this description does not help distinguish it.

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 alternatives like get_expense_lookups or get_invoice_lookups. The description lacks any context about typical use cases, prerequisites, or situations where this tool is preferable.

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