get_entry_descriptions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait—'Cached daily'—which informs the agent that results may not be real-time. However, it does not mention permissions, read-only nature, or output structure, leaving some behavioral aspects unspecified.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys both the tool's purpose and an important caching behavior. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It specifies what is returned (a list of existing time entry descriptions) and notes the caching behavior. However, it does not explicitly state the return format (e.g., array of strings), which could be further clarified given the absence of an output schema.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter details, which is appropriate since there are none to explain.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get a list of existing time entry descriptions being used in Toggl.' It uses a specific verb (get), a specific resource (time entry descriptions), and context (in Toggl), distinguishing it from siblings like get_tags (tags) and create_time_entry (creation).

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 description implies the tool is for retrieving existing time entry descriptions, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. Since there is no alternative guidance, the usage context is only implicitly clear from the purpose.

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