toast_list_time_entries

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavior. It explains only that the tool lists time entries; it does not mention defaults, date handling, pagination, output shape, or whether the optional filters restrict the results. The minimal clarification of 'clock in/out events' is helpful but not enough.

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 description is a single sentence with no filler. 'List time entries' and 'clock in/out events' are front-loaded, making the core action immediately visible. The brevity is a virtue, though it comes at the cost of missing operational details.

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 annotations, no output schema, five undocumented optional parameters, and many similar siblings, the description is not complete enough for reliable invocation. It tells an agent what the tool does but not what filters to supply, what results to expect, or what constraints apply.

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% and all five parameters have empty descriptions. The phrase 'for a date range' weakly maps to startDate/endDate, but the description adds no meaning for businessDate, employeeGuid, or restaurantGuid, and does not explain date formats or optional behavior. This is only marginal compensation for the missing schema documentation.

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 concrete verb and resource: it 'List[s] time entries' and clarifies that these are 'clock in/out events' scoped to a date range. This is clearer than a tautological restatement, but it does not explicitly distinguish the tool from the similar sibling toast_get_employee_time_entries or indicate whether it covers all employees/restaurants.

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 about when to use this tool instead of toast_get_employee_time_entries, toast_list_shifts, or any reporting sibling. The only implied condition is 'for a date range,' so an agent must infer when this tool is the appropriate choice.

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