list_employee_times

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the tool is cursor-paginated and that the call routes to a different API endpoint depending on employeeId, which is real value beyond the schema. It says nothing about authentication/permission requirements, ordering, or what a returned record contains, leaving gaps for a read tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 short sentences with zero filler, and the core identity of the tool is front-loaded before the branching detail. Every clause (endpoint paths, employeeId behavior, pagination) adds information an agent can act on.

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 three-parameter, optional-filter list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers routing, filtering, and pagination adequately. The remaining shortfall is the shape of a returned time record, which is the one thing the agent cannot get from structured fields here.

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 100%, so the baseline would be 3; the description earns an extra point by explaining that employeeId does more than filter — it switches the underlying endpoint — and by framing limit/cursor as a cursor-pagination pair ('Cursor from a previous response nextCursor' is reinforced by 'Cursor-paginated'). That meaning is not derivable from the schema alone.

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 and resource ('List time-tracking records') and goes further by explaining the two modes: all records via /employee-times vs. scoped via /employees/{id}/times. It does not name the confusable siblings (list_project_times, get_employee_time), so an agent still has to infer that this tool is not the project-time or single-record tool, but the verb+resource is unambiguous.

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 employeeId conditional implicitly tells the agent when to pass a filter versus list everything, which is genuine usage guidance. However, in a sibling set containing get_employee_time, list_project_times, and several clock/pause mutation tools, there is no explicit statement of when to choose this tool over those alternatives, so selection still requires inference.

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