List time entries

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so the description's 'READ ONLY' adds nothing. However, it goes beyond the annotations by explaining the authoritative durationMinutes vs display-only durationHours distinction and the fact that the response echoes the resolved date range, which is critical behavioral context for correctly interpreting results. That extra value justifies a 4.

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 economical, with the key scoping guidance and alternative routing up front. The repeated 'READ ONLY' is redundant given annotations but harmless, and other sentences each add value: alternatives, duration handling, and range-echo caveat. No waste, though the redundancy keeps it from a perfect score.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description does well to explain the return shape (durations, total, echoed range) and the safety check about verifying the range. It covers the essential pitfalls an agent must know to use it correctly. The only minor gap is no mention of pagination or total semantics, but the limit parameter is self-explanatory and the tool is read-only, so completeness is strong.

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%, and each parameter (limit, goalId, preset, search, endDate, startDate) is already well-documented in the schema with defaults, formats, and timezone semantics. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies. It does mention duration output but that is not parameter semantics.

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 tool returns 'the individual time entries the user logged over a window, with a total', specifying a distinct verb and resource. It further distinguishes itself from get_report by contrasting raw entries against aggregated rollups, making sibling differentiation explicit without needing to open the schema.

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?

It explicitly directs the agent to use get_report for aggregates, comparisons and per-goal rollups, and frames this tool as the raw-record alternative. The 'rather than summing these yourself' phrasing gives a clear when-to-use condition, and the absence of any other exclusions keeps the guidance unambiguous.

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