List Cost Codes Ids For Timesheets

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint true, destructiveHint false. The description adds pagination info and mentions the endpoint, but the contradictory statement about the return type (Field Productivity vs cost code IDs) undermines 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 contains redundancy and confusion: it first mentions 'list of Cost Codes Ids' then switches to 'Field Productivity records'. It could be more concise and structurally clear.

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?

With no output schema, the description should detail the response structure. It mentions paginated JSON array and pagination metadata but does not specify the fields of each record. The tool is simple but the description leaves gaps.

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 100% with descriptions. The description adds value by explaining pagination parameters ('Use page and per_page to control pagination; the response includes pagination metadata.') and highlighting the required project_id.

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 it returns 'Cost Codes Ids for Timesheets' but then says to use it to 'enumerate Field Productivity records' and returns 'Field Productivity records'. This is a direct contradiction, confusing what the tool actually returns. It does not clearly distinguish from sibling 'list_cost_codes_for_timesheets'.

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 gives some usage context: 'when you need a paginated overview, to find IDs, or to filter by query parameters.' However, it does not mention when NOT to use this tool or alternatives like the sibling list_cost_codes_for_timesheets.

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