timeiq_report_time_detail

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden to disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'generate report', implying a read operation, but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive, nor does it mention side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. For a report tool, this is insufficient.

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 a single 8-word sentence, which is overly terse given the complexity of 7 parameters and nested objects. While it is front-loaded, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, making it insufficient.

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 absence of annotations, output schema, and any parameter descriptions, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the report's output structure, filter behavior, or how the parameters interact, leaving critical gaps for an AI agent to invoke the tool 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 7 parameters with 0% description coverage, yet the description adds no explanations for any parameter (e.g., start_date, end_date, clients, projects, services, people, extras). The description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 states the tool generates a 'detailed time-entry report (specific items list)', which is a specific verb+resource. However, among many sibling report tools (e.g., timeiq_report_time, timeiq_report_classic, timeiq_report_expenses_detail), it does not clearly differentiate beyond the vague 'specific items list' hint. The purpose is clear but lacks distinctiveness.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternative report tools or other time-related tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, filters, or use cases, leaving the agent without context to choose appropriately.

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