Show Timecard Entry Change History (Company)

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent behavior. Description adds pagination details (page/per_page), response format (paginated JSON array with metadata), and required parameters, providing useful context beyond annotations.

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?

Description is moderately concise but includes redundancy (repeats title) and ambiguous phrasing ('Field Productivity records'). Some sentences could be merged or clarified.

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?

Missing key context: the response structure beyond 'paginated JSON array' is not described, and the phrase 'Field Productivity records' contradicts the tool's purpose (change history). No output schema exists, so description should clarify what the array contains.

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. Description adds usage context for page/per_page ('control pagination') and confirms required parameters, adding meaning beyond the schema descriptions.

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 fetches change history for a timecard entry at company level, which is clear. However, it refers to 'Field Productivity records' which is misleading and doesn't differentiate from other similar show tools like show_timecard_entry or show_change_history.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as show_timecard_entry or show_equipment_change_history. Only states the action without usage context or exclusions.

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