unanet_get_timesheets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Retrieve timesheets for a date range' — this is already implied by the tool name. It does not disclose default status behavior (e.g., whether 'All' is used), response format, pagination, or any read-only guarantees beyond the verb 'Retrieve' which is inferred.

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 a single concise sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the action and resource. However, its brevity borders on under-specification, but that is a completeness issue, not conciseness.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should provide more context. It omits any mention of default status behavior, possible filters, response structure, or authentication requirements. For a 3-parameter tool, this is insufficient for confident use.

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 67%, but the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. It mentions 'date range' which aligns with startDate/endDate, but the schema already describes those. The status parameter, which is not covered in the description, is left entirely unexplained. The description does not compensate for the missing schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb 'Retrieve' and names the resource 'timesheets', with a date-range scope. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like submit_timesheet or approve_timesheet, and it is not a tautology.

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 does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or related tools (e.g., when to use submit_timesheet instead). It only implies its purpose through the verb and resource.

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