Weekly report

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds the valuable 'Needs a paid plan' caveat, which warns about a potential failure mode, and describes the returned grid structure. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 extremely efficient: two short clauses that convey the core output format and a critical prerequisite. Every word adds value, with no filler or redundant repetition of schema/annotation information.

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 tool with 11 parameters, no output schema, and two sibling report tools, the description is adequate but sparse. It explains the grid layout and paid-plan requirement, but doesn't mention that it aggregates time entries, what the columns represent precisely, or how it relates to other report tools. The schema covers parameter details, but the description leaves out some high-level usage context.

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?

All 11 parameters are already fully documented in the schema with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description only adds minimal semantic context for group (rows per project/person) and subgroup (not explicitly, but implied), but does not explain filters, date ranges, or workspace handling beyond 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 identifies the tool as producing a weekly grid with rows per project/person and columns per day. This specific structure distinguishes it from sibling report tools like clockify_summary_report and clockify_detailed_report, giving the agent a clear sense of what the output looks like.

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 gives the grid format and the paid-plan prerequisite, but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over the other report tools (e.g., summary or detailed). No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, so usage context is only implied.

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