autotask_search_time_entries

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

No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It discloses default pagination (25 per page) and API threshold warning, but doesn't explicitly state the tool is read-only or non-destructive. This is adequate but not thorough.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Each sentence provides valuable information without redundancy. Efficient and clear.

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?

Given 10 parameters and no output schema, the description covers pagination, filter types, and key usage advice. Lacks details on response format, but sufficient for a search tool. Well-balanced completeness.

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 90%, so baseline is 3. Description adds context like using approvalStatus and date range scoping, but most parameter details are already in schema. Modest added value.

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 it searches time entries in Autotask. It lists specific filters (resource, ticket, etc.), making purpose specific. While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling search tools, the name and context make it clear.

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?

Provides explicit advice: use approvalStatus='unapproved' to find unposted entries, and scope by date range first to avoid API thresholds. This helps the agent decide when and how to use the tool, though it lacks 'when not to use' alternatives.

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