tempo_get_timesheet_approvals_by_team

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'Retrieve' is consistent with that. It adds useful context about the returned aggregation (who submitted, is open, or approved), but does not disclose behavior like pagination, period boundaries, or response shape beyond the schema. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded sentence that states the action, scope, and reviewer perspective without filler. The em-dash clause adds meaningful context about what the caller will see.

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 tool with only two required parameters and no output schema, the description communicates the resource, period, and expected approval status categories. It is functional on its own, though explicit guidance about sibling timesheet-approval tools would make it more 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?

All four parameters are fully described in the schema with types, formats, defaults, and an enum for view. The description only refers to 'the given period' generically, so it adds little semantic value beyond the schema, which already carries the burden.

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 names a specific action (Retrieve), resource (every team member's timesheet approval for a period), and perspective (reviewer's view of submitted/open/approved states). This clearly distinguishes the tool from related timesheet tools by scope and viewpoint.

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 implies the reviewer audience but never states when to use this tool versus alternatives such as tempo_get_timesheet_approvals_waiting or tempo_get_timesheet_approval_status. No explicit conditions or sibling routing are provided.

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