tempo_get_global_configuration

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower, but the description adds essentially nothing beyond them — no note on what settings are exposed, whether auth is required, or how the open-world fetch behaves. The rich response-shape detail lives in the schema, not the description.

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 with zero filler, appropriately sized for a one-parameter read tool. It is concise but almost too sparse to count as strong structure.

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 carries the burden of explaining what an agent gets back, yet it only says 'global Tempo configuration settings' without hinting at the shape or contents. Combined with the absent usage guidance, the description is thin for a config-retrieval tool.

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 'view' enum is thoroughly documented there (compact vs full, URL stripping, no field projection). The description adds no parameter meaning itself, so the 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 (Retrieve) and resource (global Tempo configuration settings), which is clear enough for an agent to identify it among siblings. It does not differentiate from any near-alternative, but none of the sibling tools overlaps with a global-config read, so the risk is low.

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 offers no when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and no alternatives or exclusions. For a simple read tool this is tolerable but still leaves the agent to infer motivation for calling it.

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