tempo_get_plans

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. Beyond that, the description adds nothing behavioral: no mention of pagination semantics despite limit/offset parameters, no note on result volume/caps, and no hint at response shape. The one added clause (required dates) duplicates the schema.

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, no filler, purpose front-loaded before the prerequisite. It is lean rather than bloated; the only knock is that the brevity leaves a 15-parameter query tool under-explained when the description could have carried a few more high-value tokens.

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 15 parameters and no output schema, the description is thin: it never describes the returned plan record structure, pagination behavior, or how the various ID filters narrow results. It does name the returned resource, and the schema itself is exhaustive, so the agent can still call the tool correctly — but not confidently interpret the result.

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%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema itself (the 'view' parameter even carries an unusually rich explanation). The description adds no filter semantics, no interaction rules among the many ID filters, and no defaults — baseline 3 is the ceiling here.

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 a list of Tempo plans') and glosses the domain term ('resource allocations'), so an agent knows what it gets back. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling tempo_get_plan (singular) or explain the relationship to tempo_search_worklogs-style filtered retrieval, so sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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 only notes that from/to are required, which is already enforced by the schema's required array. There is no statement of when to use this multi-filter listing versus tempo_get_plan for a single plan, nor any when-not guidance or note about which filters combine meaningfully.

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