Show Timecard Entry (Company)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the description's statement 'Return detailed information' aligns but adds little beyond that. The API reference provides some context but no additional behavioral traits like rate limits or authentication.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the action and includes the endpoint. Every sentence provides value without redundancy.

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 simple read tool with annotations, the description is adequate but could be more complete by addressing the pagination parameters or outlining the return structure, especially since no output schema is provided.

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 covers 100% of parameters, and the description reiterates required parameters (id, company_id). It does not explain the presence of pagination parameters (page, per_page) which are unusual for a single-resource endpoint, nor does it add meaning beyond the schema.

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 it returns detailed information about a specific Timecard Entry using its identifier. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying 'specific' and providing the endpoint, which contrasts with list or create operations.

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 indicates when to use this tool ('fetch the full details of a specific...') but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with alternatives like list_timecard_entries_company or update_timecard_entry_company. The context is implicit given the tool name.

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