clockodo_list_entry_texts

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this is a safe read operation, and the description does not contradict it. The description adds useful context beyond the annotation by explaining these are 'recurring descriptions' intended for consistent naming when creating entries, which clarifies the nature of the data returned. It does not detail pagination or other behaviors, but for a simple read-only list, this is sufficient.

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 two sentences, front-loading the core function in the first sentence and the usage intent in the second. Every word earns its place, with no fluff, filler, or redundant details. It is a model of conciseness for a simple lookup tool.

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 simple read-only list tool, the description covers the purpose and usage well. However, it omits any mention of pagination, despite the 'page' parameter existing in the schema. Since the tool lists predefined texts, there could be many results, and an agent should know whether results are paginated or how to get all of them. This missing detail is a notable gap, though not fatal given the otherwise clear intent.

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?

The input schema documents 'term' with 'search substring' (50% coverage), but 'page' has no schema description. The tool description does not mention either parameter, let alone compensate for the undocumented 'page'. With schema coverage at only 50%, the description should at least hint at pagination or that 'page' controls paging, but it is completely silent, leaving the agent to guess the meaning of a common pagination parameter.

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 explicitly states the verb 'Lists' and the resource 'account's predefined entry texts (recurring descriptions)', making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It also ties the purpose to a concrete action ('Pass one as text when creating entries'), which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like clockodo_list_entries (which lists time entries) and clockodo_create_entry.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use the tool: when needing a text to pass when creating entries for consistent naming. It does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it, but the context of 'predefined entry texts' is sufficient to infer its role relative to siblings. A clearer exclusion (e.g., 'for time entries, use clockodo_list_entries') would push this to a 5.

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