tempo_get_periods

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds useful domain context (periods drive timesheet approval cycles) but says nothing about date-range scoping, pagination, or result size, which matters for a range query against an open-world system.

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 sentence with the core action front-loaded and a compact parenthetical that earns its place by defining the resource. No filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description is the only place to learn what comes back, and it only says 'period definitions' without field shape or ordering. Required date range and the compact/full behavior live entirely in the schema. Adequate but with a clear gap for a query tool with no output schema.

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 schema fully documents 'from', 'to', and the compact/full 'view' enum. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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: 'Retrieve Tempo period definitions', with a parenthetical clarifying what a period is (timesheet approval cycles). This is clear and distinct from the worklog/plan/team/account siblings, but it does not explicitly name a sibling or contrast scope, so it falls short of the 5 anchor.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., that a date range is mandatory), and no indication of what an agent should do with the results. The parenthetical hints at the domain but is not usage direction.

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