Show Time And Material Timecard

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds context by specifying the API endpoint (Project Management > Field Productivity) and the required parameters. It aligns with annotations and provides additional behavioral context such as the method of retrieval (GET) and the return format (JSON object).

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, each with a clear purpose: stating the function, providing usage context, and including API details. It is front-loaded with the primary action and avoids unnecessary information. Every sentence contributes meaningfully.

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 simplicity of a retrieval tool with strong annotations and full parameter descriptions, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, what it returns (JSON), required inputs, and API reference. No output schema exists, but the description adequately describes the return value. It is complete for an agent to invoke 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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for its 4 parameters, but the descriptions are brief (e.g., 'URL path parameter'). The tool description adds value by explicitly stating 'Required parameters: id, project_id' and tying them to the endpoint path. This clarifies their role beyond the schema. However, it doesn't elaborate on optional parameters, so not a 5.

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 detailed information' and the resource 'Time And Material Timecard'. It specifies the scope 'specific' and distinguishes from sibling tools by naming the exact endpoint and required parameters. The name itself is explicit, and the description reinforces it.

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 tells when to use the tool: 'Use this to fetch the full details of a specific Field Productivity records by its identifier.' It also states the required parameters, which guides the agent on necessary inputs. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives, which would improve the score.

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