tempo_get_teams

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

The annotation already declares readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds some context by enumerating supported filters, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, default limits, or response shape beyond what the schema already provides.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The first states the core action and resource, and the second summarizes the filtering capability, making the description easy to scan and act on.

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?

Given the read-only annotation and complete parameter schema, the description plus structured data is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly. It could add response shape or pagination details, but for a straightforward list endpoint this is not a major gap.

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 the baseline is 3 even though the description adds little parameter detail. The description restates the three primary filters but does not meaningfully enrich the schema's own parameter descriptions.

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 opens with 'Retrieve a list of Tempo teams', giving a specific verb and resource. The plural 'list' clearly separates it from the sibling tempo_get_team, and the filter options (name, member account ids, team ids) further define the tool's scope.

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 clearly indicates this is the tool for listing/filtering Tempo teams, which is enough context for an agent to select it over the singular tempo_get_team. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the plural resource and filter list make the intended use evident.

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