cor_search_time_entries

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It fails to disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether it paginates, or any rate limits. The phrase 'Search time entries' implies a read operation, but no explicit behavioral traits are given.

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 short and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by an Args section. Every sentence is relevant, but the brevity leaves gaps; it could be expanded without losing 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?

Given the complexity of a search tool and the presence of an output schema, the description should explain filtering behavior (e.g., how multiple filters combine, default when no filters provided, pagination). It lacks this context, making it incomplete for effective 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 coverage is 0% and the description only states 'filters: Dict with filter fields' without detailing valid keys, types, or examples. The schema itself is generic with additionalProperties: true, so the description adds minimal value for understanding parameter usage.

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 clearly states the verb 'search' and resource 'time entries', and lists example filter fields (userId, projectId, dates, status). However, it lacks explicit differentiation from sibling tools like 'cor_get_hours_by_date' which also retrieves hours by date, so it doesn't fully stand out.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'cor_get_hours_by_date' or 'cor_log_hours'). There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context hints about the appropriate scenario for filtering time entries.

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