solidtime_importers

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate the safety profile. Beyond that, it adds only the raw endpoint path and nothing about what an importer record contains or whether the list is organization-scoped. For a discovery tool, the description is functionally thin.

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?

It is two short sentences with the verb and resource front-loaded. The second sentence gives only the endpoint path, which is mildly redundant with the tool's behavior but still cheap and useful as a hint about the underlying API.

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?

This is a low-complexity, read-only list tool with no output schema and no required parameters, so the description has little to carry. Even so, it never explains what an importer entry looks like, which organization scope applies, or how this discovery step relates to solidtime_import.

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?

There is only one parameter, and the schema describes it at 100% coverage, including its fallback chain through SOLIDTIME_ORGANIZATION_ID and GET /v1/users/me/memberships. The description adds nothing about it, but the schema already covers the semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: "List available importers." That clearly distinguishes it from the write-oriented sibling solidtime_import. It does not explicitly name solidtime_import as the tool that performs the actual import, so the contrast is implied rather than stated.

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 on when to call this tool instead of solidtime_import, which is the obvious adjacent sibling. The agent must infer that this tool discovers importers, while the other tool runs an import. No prerequisites, no follow-up steps, and no indication of which importer keys are valid.

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