Get my working records

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

Annotations only say readOnly/openWorld; the description adds substantial behavior the agent could not otherwise know: the API omits actual working minutes and breaks, actual minutes equal elapsed start-to-end with breaks included, break time is unknown, there is no overtime field, long ranges are auto-split into 31-day requests, and the hard cap is 366 days. These are exactly the caveats that prevent misinterpreting results.

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?

Front-loaded with what is returned, then the interpretation caveat, then defaults and routing. Every sentence carries information the agent needs to call and interpret the tool correctly; nothing is filler.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description enumerates the return fields and explicitly flags the absent ones (working minutes, breaks, overtime), which is the critical completeness gap for this tool. Combined with the range limits and default window, an agent can call it and interpret the response without further help.

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 the two date parameters and their defaults are already documented; the description reinforces the default window and adds constraints the schema lacks (automatic 31-day chunking, 366-day maximum). It stops short of format edge cases (inclusive/exclusive handling is only in the schema), so it is an enhancement rather than a replacement.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get your own daily working records') and enumerates the returned fields (day category, start/end time, punch times), so the agent knows exactly what data comes back. It is clearly distinguishable from get_today_status (single day) and summarize_working_hours (aggregates).

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?

Explicitly routes aggregation/overtime needs to summarize_working_hours and states the default date window, giving the agent clear context for when this tool applies. It does not address the remaining adjacent siblings (get_stamps, get_today_status, punch) or when a narrower call would be preferable, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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