List project crew hours

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

Beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations, the description discloses the returned detail: day, employee, cost code, regular/overtime hours and labor cost, per-employee sums sorted by most hours, project total, and the distinct-day count. It also explains that cost comes from Directory wages and is zero when no wage is set.

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?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loads the core purpose before detailing the returned records and aggregation behavior. Every sentence contributes useful information for calling or interpreting the tool.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values and does so thoroughly: it describes the individual entries, aggregate ordering, project total, and cost caveat. For this list tool, no material context is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already documented, including the project_id reference to list_projects and the YYYY-MM-DD date semantics. The description only reiterates that the date range is optional and adds no further parameter meaning.

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 states a specific resource and scope: hours and labor cost logged on one project, broken down per employee, day, and cost code, with sums. It is clear and distinct in substance, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings such as list_time_cards or get_job_costing.

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 implies when the tool is useful by explaining that it reads the project's Time Cards tab and supports an optional date range. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives, so the agent must infer the routing decision.

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