get_card_timelogs

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral trait beyond that — a compatibility error when dates are missing during range filtering — but the phrasing is ambiguous about which date field triggers it, so the added value is real yet imprecise.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the filter caveats. The terse, jargon-dense phrasing ("applied locally to for_date") costs a little readability but wastes no space.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the schema documents the pagination cursors and text_offsets. For a 12-parameter, read-only tool with nested offset objects, the description covers the distinguishing filter semantics and one failure mode but omits how to continue pagination and what 'detail: full' changes.

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?

With only 25% schema description coverage across 12 params, the description must compensate, and it does for the hardest part: from/to and for_date share an identical $ref in the schema, and the description alone explains that from/to are applied locally to for_date while for_date/personal are server-side Kaiten filters. The remaining params (limit, offset, detail, card_id, pagination cursors) are left to 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 opening sentence gives a specific verb plus resource ("Read card time logs"), which is enough to distinguish it from get_card and the list_* siblings. It does not, however, distinguish it from the closely related get_user_timelogs or get_timesheet, which an agent would plausibly confuse it with.

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 explains how the filters behave (from/to applied locally, for_date/personal sent server-side) but never says when to choose this tool over get_user_timelogs or get_timesheet, nor any preconditions. Filter mechanics are parameter behavior, not usage routing, so this is close to 'no guidance'.

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