List time tracking entries

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

The description reveals that 'timer_value' is in minutes, 'hourly_rate' is in cents, and that 'cleared_at' is set once billed (null means unbilled). It also explains the default compact field set, the return envelope structure, and use of 'next_page' for paging. This goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent 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?

Four sentences, each conveying distinct information: purpose, data units, billing filter, and return format. No redundant wording, and each sentence earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description provides a return shape and paging details. It covers units, billing state, and default fields, making it self-contained and complete for a list operation.

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?

All 8 parameters are already fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add new parameter semantics; it only restates the 'fields' and 'next_page' behavior already covered by the schema.

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 opens with 'List time tracking entries from easybill with optional filters and pagination', providing a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'easybill_get_time_tracking' by implying a list operation rather than a single fetch.

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 states 'which is what you want when preparing an invoice', giving a concrete use case, and mentions filtering by project/article. It does not explicitly name alternatives like get_time_tracking, but the context is clear enough to infer when this list tool is appropriate.

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