autotask_search_time_entries

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It mentions default page size (25) and the API threshold concern. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe any side effects. For a search tool, this is adequate but could be improved.

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 concise with 4 sentences, front-loading the purpose and then adding critical details. No fluff, though the last two sentences could be slightly more streamlined.

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 10 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: pagination (default 25), filter capabilities, and API constraint. It lacks explicit return structure but is sufficient for a search tool.

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 high (90%), so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds value by highlighting key filters (approvalStatus, date range) and the fan-out pattern, but does not expand on parameters beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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, specifying the resource and action. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on time entries rather than other entities like tickets or companies.

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 good guidance on when to use the tool, including filtering options and a crucial note about scoping by date range first to avoid API thresholds. It also suggests using approvalStatus='unapproved' for unposted entries. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is strong.

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