Get Work Diary

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by listing what the entries contain (time tracked, memos, activity data) and the hourly-contract restriction. It does not contradict annotations.

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 main purpose is front-loaded, followed by compact Args, Returns, and Note sections. The Args section partly duplicates the schema, but it is short and skimmable, so no sentence feels wasted.

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?

For a five-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what is returned, the supported date formats, the output format option, and the key eligibility constraint. It is missing only an explicit rule for combining date with a range, which is a minor edge-case 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the description mostly restates the schema's parameter docs (contract_id, date, start_date, end_date, response_format). It adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies. One minor ambiguity remains: behavior when both date and a start/end range are supplied is not clarified.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get work diary entries for an hourly contract' and immediately clarifies the content ('time tracked, screenshots, and activity levels'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on contracts, proposals, jobs, or earnings.

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 note 'Only works for hourly contracts with time tracking enabled' provides an explicit boundary for when the tool applies. It does not name an alternative tool, but no sibling performs the same function, so this constraint is sufficient context for an agent.

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