get_hours_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden alone; it does disclose the required 'read:reports' scope, which is genuinely useful. It omits whether null user_id/project_id means aggregate over all, and how the per-project breakdown is grouped or ordered.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every clause carries information. Slightly under-specified rather than padded, which is the right failure mode for brevity.

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?

No output schema, no annotations, and four undocumented parameters mean the description should explain filtering and return shape but does not. An agent knows the tool's general output but not how to parameterize it correctly.

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 adds no meaning for any of the four parameters — it never says that user_id or project_id act as filters or what date format start_date/end_date expect. The phrase 'per-project breakdown' hints that project_id groups rather than filters, but that is inference rather than documentation.

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?

States a concrete resource and result shape ('Total and billable hours plus per-project breakdown'), which tells an agent exactly what comes back. It stops short of naming the sibling hours_by_day, so the distinction from that tool must be inferred.

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 on when to pick this over hours_by_day or list_time_entries, both of which plausibly overlap. The only parenthetical is a permission requirement, not a usage condition.

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