get_my_time_entries

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: input times are interpreted as Europe/Zurich local or ISO 8601 with offset and converted to UTC for Clockodo, and returned description fields are untrusted user data rather than instructions — a useful prompt-injection warning. It does not mention pagination or result limits.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded, followed by the security note and then the args. The content is dense but each part earns its place; the docstring-style 'Args:' block is slightly formal but not wasteful.

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, the description still discloses that entry descriptions are returned as untrusted text, and the annotation pair covers read-only/open-world behavior. For a simple two-parameter read tool this is close to complete, though result shape and paging remain unspecified.

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%, so the description carries the full burden and does so well: both required params are explained with timezone semantics (local Europe/Zurich or ISO 8601 with offset), the UTC conversion behavior, and concrete example values. This is meaningfully richer than the bare 'Time Since'/'Time Until' schema titles.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get time entries') and scopes it to the authenticated user and a time range, which cleanly separates it from write siblings like add_my_time_entry or edit_my_time_entry. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative (e.g. get_my_clock), so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus get_my_clock, get_my_absences, or the edit/delete variants. The only conditional content is parameter documentation, not usage guidance, so an agent must infer the correct tool from the name alone.

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