everhour_get_time_record

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read operation but does not mention error behavior (e.g., what happens if the ID is not found), authentication requirements, or any other side effects. This is similar to the 'update_drive' example which scored 2.

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, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is perfectly concise and front-loaded.

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?

The tool is simple with only one parameter and no output schema. However, the description does not clarify what 'details' includes or what the return value looks like, and there is no mention of error cases. This leaves some gaps, but the tool is straightforward enough that the description is minimally adequate.

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 schema already fully describes the single parameter 'id' as 'Time record ID' (100% coverage). The description adds no additional semantic value beyond saying 'by ID', so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 action ('Get'), the resource ('time record'), and the specific scope ('by ID'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like everhour_list_time_records and everhour_create_time_record.

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 phrase 'by ID' implies that the tool is used when you already have a time record ID, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like everhour_list_time_records, nor does it provide any exclusions.

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