List Timecard Entries

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: pagination details (use page and per_page, response includes metadata), and notes that it returns a JSON array. No contradictions; adds value beyond structured fields.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then return format and pagination. It includes extra but relevant details (Procore API endpoint) without being verbose. Each sentence contributes to understanding.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the return format (paginated JSON array) and pagination metadata. It also mentions required parameters and endpoint. The context is sufficient for an 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description mentions required parameters (project_id) and pagination parameters (page, per_page), but this information is already present in the input schema descriptions. No additional semantic meaning is provided beyond what the schema already offers.

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 verb (Return a list) and resource (Timecard Entries within a date range). It further specifies the usage for enumerating Field Productivity records, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_timecard_entries_company or list_timecard_entries_project, hence not a 5.

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 when to use this tool ('when you need a paginated overview, to find IDs, or to filter by query parameters'), but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives among the many sibling tools. Usage is implied but not comprehensive.

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