tempo_get_timesheet_approval_status

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation, and the description's 'Retrieve' aligns with that. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as response shape, error behavior, or default period handling beyond what the schema already provides. There is no contradiction with annotations, so a mid-range score is appropriate.

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?

The description is a single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, contains no filler, and conveys the core purpose immediately. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 status lookup, the description combined with the fully descriptive schema and readOnlyHint annotation covers the essential inputs and safety profile. With no output schema, the description could arguably say more about what the returned status looks like, but the core call requirements are clear and complete.

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 all four parameters (accountId, from, to, view) are documented in the schema, including the default behavior for 'to' and the compact/full distinction for 'view'. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the phrase 'in the given period,' which restates what the schema already covers.

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 and resource: 'Retrieve the current timesheet approval status for a user in the given period.' It clearly identifies what the tool does and the target scope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like tempo_get_timesheet_approvals_waiting or tempo_get_timesheet_approvals_by_team; the distinction is semantic rather than stated.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools, exclusions, or conditions under which another timesheet approval tool would be more appropriate. The usage context is only implied by the tool's name and resource.

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