toggl_time_entries

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on pagination, default date range, timezone handling, or result volume, all of which matter for a date-ranged list tool.

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 short sentence with no filler, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing; the front-loaded verb+resource is at least correctly placed.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations about return shape, and three wholly undocumented parameters, the description is far too thin to let an agent call this correctly without guessing at date formats and defaults.

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 0% for all three parameters. The description does not clarify the date format expected for start_date/end_date, whether the range is inclusive, behavior when omitted, or what api_key should be — leaving every parameter ambiguous.

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 verb (Get) and a resource (Toggl time entries), so the purpose is identifiable, but it is a bare restatement with no scope detail and no differentiation from sibling tools like toggl_summary or toggl_projects.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus toggl_summary (aggregates), toggl_projects (project metadata), or toggl_create_time_entry. The agent must infer the choice entirely from the tool names.

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