tempo_get_accounts

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds the useful scope detail that both open and closed accounts are returned. No behavioral traits like pagination behavior or response envelope are disclosed, but with the read-only annotation covering safety, the description contributes adequate additional context without contradiction.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the action, resource, and scope with zero redundancy. Every word 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?

For a simple read-only list tool with a fully documented schema and a read-only annotation, the description is adequate. It clearly communicates the 'all accounts' scope, and while it doesn't explicitly route to alternatives, the sibling list makes that easy to infer. Nothing critical is missing for calling the tool correctly.

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%: all three parameters (view, limit, offset) have meaningful descriptions, including the compact/full distinction and defaults. The tool description adds no parameter-level information beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('a list of all Tempo accounts'), and the parenthetical '(OPEN and CLOSED)' clarifies the scope, distinguishing it from a filtered account search. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like tempo_search_accounts or tempo_get_account, so it stops short of a 5.

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 implies use when you need the full account list without filtering, and the sibling set contains tempo_search_accounts and tempo_get_account as possible alternatives. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, so the usage context is only implied.

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