Get time card

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds substantive non-annotated context about the payload shape — one entry per employee and cost code with hours and per-entry notes, plus the crew-sheet distinction.

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 the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by return-shape detail. 'A crew sheet lists every crew member' is slightly tangential but cheaply disambiguates a domain term; otherwise no wasted prose.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of describing the return value, and it does so usefully (per-employee/cost-code entries with hours and notes). It stops short of detailing error behavior for an invalid timecard_id or pagination, which for a single-record read is a minor gap.

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?

With one parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents timecard_id and even its provenance from list_time_cards. The description reinforces that provenance but adds no format or validation detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Reads one Contractor Foreman time card by timecard_id') and clarifies the payload relative to the list tool ('what list_time_cards gives plus one entry per employee and cost code'). It is clearly the single-record detail fetch complementing list_time_cards, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings in the same way.

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?

'what list_time_cards gives plus...' establishes the selection logic: use this when you need per-employee/per-cost-code hours rather than the summary list, and it names list_time_cards as the id source. There are no explicit when-not-use cases or alternatives, keeping it just below a 5.

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