Project time entries

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: default 30-day windows up to 366 days, 50-per-page pagination, and a warning that minute-exact fields are authoritative to avoid decimal rounding errors. These details go beyond the structured annotations and help the agent know exactly what to expect.

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?

Two dense sentences contain the entire behavior contract with no filler or repetition. The operation and scope are front-loaded, and the clarification about minute-exact durations is placed at the end as an important caveat.

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 read-only listing tool with no required parameters and a fully documented schema, the description covers scope, filters, defaults, limits, pagination, and an output precision caveat. Nothing essential for selecting or invoking the tool correctly 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 baseline is 3. The description earns a higher score by tying parameters to behavior, stating the default date range, the maximum allowed range, optional filters, and page size. Individual parameter meanings are already fully covered by the schema.

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 names a specific resource, Project time bookings of a user, a list operation, and the scoping dimensions (date range, filters, pagination). It is clear and self-contained, but it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from the similarly named sibling fortytimer_list_time_entries, so it stops short of full sibling distinction.

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 implied when to use the tool:retrieve a user's project time bookings within a date range, optionally filtered by project and billability. However, it provides no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or comparison to alternatives such as fortytimer_list_time_entries, leaving selection to inference.

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