List Timecard Entries (Company)

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

Annotations already mark it read-only/idempotent, and the description restates that. But it goes beyond by specifying error responses (401/403/404), pagination behavior with pages remaining, and the company_id default from procore_set_config. This gives the agent valuable behavioral expectations.

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 information-dense with no filler; every clause carries purpose, usage, defaults, return shape, error handling, or endpoint info. It is a bit long but justifiably so.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers return type, pagination, error conditions, required parameter, default behavior, and even the API location. It is more than sufficient for an agent to invoke safely.

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 input schema already documents all 15 parameters at 100% coverage. The description adds context for company_id defaulting and notes that page/per_page control pagination, but the schema already provides the parameter details, so this is only a marginal increment.

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 opens with 'Return a list of all Timecard Entries' – a specific verb and resource. It further clarifies the use case ('discover timecard entries or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it'), and the company-level scope is clear from the required company_id and title. No ambiguity with project-level sibling.

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?

It gives explicit guidance: 'Use this to discover timecard entries or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it.' This tells the agent when to invoke it. It does not explicitly contrast with list_timecard_entries_project, so while the context is clear, it stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions.

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