List activities (time + expense entries)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint; description adds that default fields avoid bare ID+etag response, warns about matter_id misuse. Does not cover pagination, but adds non-trivial behavior beyond annotations.

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?

Two focused sentences: first states purpose, second explains a key behavior. No wasted words; information is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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, and description does not explain return format, pagination, or default fields beyond mentioning 'useful field set.' For a list endpoint with many parameters, more detail would improve completeness.

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 50%, but description only mentions filters generically without detailing parameter syntax or semantics beyond what schema provides. Could compensate by explaining fields parameter or date formats, but does not.

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?

Clearly describes the tool as listing time entries and expenses, specifies filtering options by matter, user, date range, or type, and distinguishes from sibling tools like clio_get_activity or create tools.

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?

States when to use default field set, and filtering conditions are clear. Lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives, but context from sibling names implies appropriate use.

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