autotask_search_time_entries

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry all behavioral disclosure. It explains pagination defaults (25 per page, max 500) and approvalStatus values. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, mention required permissions, or describe any side effects. The description implies a safe operation but lacks full transparency.

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?

Two tightly written sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose and default page size. The second sentence lists filter options with a usage tip. No redundant or extraneous content.

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 (all documented in schema) and no output schema, the description covers the main filters and pagination. It does not describe the return format (e.g., list of time entry objects), but for a search tool the purpose is self-evident. The lack of output schema is an ecosystem gap, not a description failure.

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, but the tool description adds value by stating the default page size and giving a concrete example for approvalStatus. This goes beyond the schema's enum descriptions and helps an agent understand typical usage.

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 'Search for time entries in Autotask' (verb+resource). It lists multiple filter dimensions (resource, ticket, project, task, date range, approval status) that distinguish this from other sibling search tools like autotask_search_tickets or autotask_search_projects.

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 provides a concrete usage example ('Use approvalStatus="unapproved" to find entries not yet posted'), which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternative tools (e.g., autotask_get_ticket_details for detailed time entry info).

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