Get my man-hours

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds real operational context on top: the 93-day maximum range, the default date window, and the fact that closed (締め) / fixed (確定) days are locked. The return shape (per day/project/task, in minutes, names included) is also disclosed. It stops short of stating pagination or whether results are truncated at the 93-day cap.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the resource and output shape come first, constraints after. The closed/fixed-day sentence is slightly tangential for a read-only tool and reads as a caveat aimed at a write workflow, which costs a point.

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?

With only two fully documented optional parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies everything an agent needs: default window, hard range limit, returned dimensions and units, and the immutability caveat for closed/fixed days.

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%, so baseline is 3; the description earns an extra point by adding the 93-day maximum span, a constraint the schema does not encode. The "Defaults to this month" line reinforces but largely restates the schema's default descriptions for `from`/`to`.

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?

Specific verb plus resource ("Get your own man-hour records (工数)"), with the granularity stated (per day, project, task) and the unit of measure (minutes). It is immediately distinguishable from save_manhours/delete_manhours and from get_working_records, and the "your own" scope rules out multi-user lookup.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: "your own" bounds the scope and "Defaults to this month" tells the agent what happens if it omits dates. But no alternative is named (e.g. summarize_working_hours for aggregates, get_working_records for a different record type) and no when-not condition is given.

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