autotask_search_time_entries

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it's a search/read operation (implied by 'search'), returns paginated results (25 per page default), and provides filtering logic. It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens with no filters, but covers essential operational context.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: three concise sentences that each earn their place by stating purpose, pagination behavior, filterable fields, and a specific usage example. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 search tool with 10 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains what the tool does and basic behavior, but doesn't cover response format, error handling, or what happens when no results are found. Given the complexity, it meets minimum viable standards.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all 10 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by listing filterable fields and giving an approvalStatus example, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format, or interaction details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 searches for time entries in Autotask with specific filtering capabilities. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on time entries rather than companies, tickets, projects, etc., though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other search tools that might exist.

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 provides implied usage by listing filterable fields (resource, ticket, project, etc.) and giving a specific example for approvalStatus='unapproved'. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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