tempo_get_periods

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'Retrieve' aligns with that. The description adds no further behavioral detail such as response shape, pagination, or date-range semantics, but for a simple read-only getter the annotation covers the safety profile.

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?

Single sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded, and no redundant words. The parenthetical earns its place by clarifying the domain.

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 read-only list tool, the description plus fully documented schema and readOnlyHint cover the essentials. It could be slightly more explicit about returning a list of periods across the from/to range, but the name and schema make that clear.

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%; both date parameters and the view enum have descriptions. The tool description itself adds no parameter semantics, 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('Tempo period definitions'), and the parenthetical 'used for timesheet approval cycles' adds useful domain context. No sibling tool targets periods, so it is readily distinguishable despite being terse.

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 parenthetical gives context (timesheet approval cycles) but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. There are no direct sibling period tools, but the usage guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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