verify_entries

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does meaningful work: it declares the operation read-only and spells out the response contract including the meaning of the 'unexpected' array (dates saved server-side but absent from the file). It leaves out failure behavior for a malformed file and any permission requirements.

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, zero filler. The operation and its read-only nature come first, and the return contract is compactly encoded in-line rather than prose-padded.

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 compensates by defining the result object field-by-field, which is exactly what an agent needs to interpret mismatches. Missing only error/edge-case behavior for an invalid or unreadable entries file.

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?

One parameter with 100% schema description coverage, which already documents the path and the { date, hours?, comment } element shape. The description adds only that the date range is derived from the file, which is a small increment over 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?

States a specific verb and resource: compares a caller-supplied entries file against eHour's stored data for the file's date range. That is distinguishable from read_timesheet (which reads server state) because the input is a file to be diffed, though the description never names the sibling to make the contrast explicit.

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 '(read-only)' tag and the comparison framing imply a verification/preview role before apply_month, but the description never says when to use this instead of read_timesheet or apply_month, nor does it state preconditions. Usage must be inferred from the sibling list.

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