Get timesheet entries

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden and does so well. It explicitly discloses auto-paging through the entire result set, that callers never need to loop on pageNumber, the 60-day range validation, and the best-effort statusLabel enrichment alongside the preserved numeric status. These are meaningful behaviors beyond what the schema or name implies.

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?

Three sentences, all dense with useful information: purpose first, then auto-paging behavior, then status field handling. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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 has moderate complexity, no output schema, and no annotations, but the description covers the critical behavioral aspects an agent needs: scope, paging, date-range limit, and status field semantics. The only notable gap is the lack of explicit differentiation from get_project_time_entries, but it is not essential for making a correct call.

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 input schema already covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real value by clarifying pageSize 'does not limit total results' and by noting the 60-day range validation that constrains from/to, which supplements the schema's date defaults.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'Fetch PSA timesheet entries from Keka across employees/projects for a date range.' This clearly names the tool's domain and scope. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling get_project_time_entries, but the 'PSA timesheet entries across employees/projects' phrasing provides enough operational context to be distinct.

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 gives clear usage context: call this for PSA timesheet entries over a date range, with automatic paging handled internally. It does not state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the scope is specific enough that an agent can infer the appropriate situation.

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