Get project timesheet entries

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does it well: it reveals automatic pagination through the full result set, combined returns, and a 60-day range validation before calling Keka. This goes beyond what the schema alone conveys.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the behavioral notes (pagination, range validation) are placed right after, each earning 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?

For a fetch tool with five well-documented parameters, the description covers the key operational behaviors: scope, pagination, and validation. No output schema exists, but the description does not need to enumerate fields since it clearly states the returned data is the combined result set.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters clearly. The description adds useful contextual details (auto-pagination, combined result, date-range limit) but does not add per-parameter meaning beyond the schema baseline.

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?

States a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('PSA timesheet entries for a single project from Keka'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_timesheet_entries. The single-project scope is explicit and unambiguous.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when fetching entries for a single project. It provides context about pagination and date constraints but does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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