Summary report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds the important prerequisite that a paid plan is required, which is beyond what annotations provide. It also clarifies the workspace-wide scope, adding useful context without contradicting the safety hints.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and then gives a key prerequisite and alternative. Every word earns its place; no fluff or repetition.

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 read-only report tool without an output schema, the description adequately communicates what it returns (grouped totals), its workspace scope, and the paid-plan limitation. It could have included explicit behavior when the plan is insufficient, but overall it is complete enough for selection and invocation.

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, so parameters are already well-documented. The description adds some context about default grouping and workspace scope, but it does not go into detail about individual parameters, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness.

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 produces totals grouped in the Clockify summary report style for the whole workspace, which is a specific and distinct purpose. It also differentiates itself from the sibling clockify_time_summary by referencing the free-plan alternative.

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 explicitly tells users this requires a paid plan and to use clockify_time_summary instead on the free plan, which is clear when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not, however, mention alternatives like clockify_detailed_report or clockify_weekly_report, but those serve different report types.

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