List time entries and expenses

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It helpfully reveals the default firm-wide scope and the returned page-level summary, but omits permissions, rate limits, and the shape of the returned entry list.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose followed by scope behavior and pagination advice. Efficient with no filler, though the third sentence could be tightened slightly.

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 10-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is only partially complete: it hints at a summary return value but does not describe the returned entry structure or pagination response fields that an agent would need.

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 70%, and the description adds real meaning beyond the schema by explaining the behavior when matter_id/user_id are absent and by naming the billing status values used for filtering. It does not, however, clarify ambiguous params like all_types or the type/status interaction.

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 specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('time entries and optionally expenses'), and enumerates the primary filter axes. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling clio_time_summary, which also returns aggregate hours/amounts.

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?

Gives useful operational guidance: without matter_id and user_id it returns firm-wide results, and for large periods to use limit and page_token. However, it never states when to prefer this over alternatives like clio_time_summary or clio_time_entry_create, leaving the main routing decision to inference.

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