Show Timesheet Employee Id Filters

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read. The description adds pagination behavior ('Use page and per_page to control pagination; the response includes pagination metadata'), which is useful but does not clarify the actual returned data structure or the fact that it returns a list of employee IDs. The mention of 'Field Productivity records' is misleading, so transparency is partially compromised.

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 moderately concise but includes extraneous details like 'Procore API: Project Management > Field Productivity' and the full endpoint URL. The purpose is not front-loaded due to the mismatch between the tool name and the described functionality, which reduces clarity. Each sentence earns its place but could be tightened.

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?

No output schema is provided, and the description fails to describe the return value structure beyond 'a paginated JSON array of Field Productivity records.' It does not specify what fields are included or that the data represents employee IDs. Given the lack of output schema, the description should compensate but does not adequately complete the context for an agent.

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 has 100% description coverage for all three parameters (company_id, page, per_page). The description merely repeats schema information ('Required parameters: company_id', 'Use page and per_page') without adding new semantic context or usage nuances. Baseline 3 is appropriate as no extra value is provided.

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 begins with 'Show timesheet employee id filters' but then immediately states 'fetch the full details of a specific Field Productivity records by its identifier,' which mismatches the tool's name and intent. The endpoint '/timesheets/filters/employee_ids' suggests it returns a list of employee IDs for filtering, not Field Productivity records. This inconsistency makes the purpose unclear.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like 'show_timesheet_created_by_filters' or 'show_timesheet_project_filters.' It merely says 'Use this to fetch...' without any contextual or alternative direction, leaving the agent with no differentiation among the many similar filter tools.

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