tempo_get_account

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context about the id-vs-key addressing distinction and the retrieval path, which annotations don't convey. Does not describe errors (e.g. behavior for missing id), so not a 5.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose followed by the key routing guidance. Every clause 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?

Complete enough for a simple read tool: purpose, addressing model, and alternative routing are all present. No output schema exists, but the description adds little about response shape beyond what 'view' already documents; minor gap for a single-resource getter.

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% and the 'id' and 'view' params are well documented in the schema itself, including enum semantics. Description adds only the id-is-numeric-not-key reinforcement, which is largely redundant with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource+lookup key ('Retrieve a single Tempo account by its numeric id') and explicitly distinguishes itself from update/delete (which use key) and tempo_search_accounts (key-to-id translation). An agent can select this without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative path: to go from a key to an id, use tempo_search_accounts with keys. Also clarifies that only update/delete operate by key, preventing misuse of this tool with an account key.

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