tempo_get_timesheet_reviewers

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. The description adds the workflow linkage but says nothing about permissions needed, whether the result set can be empty, or how it is filtered — so it adds only modest behavioral context on top of the 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?

Two short sentences, both load-bearing: the first states what is returned, the second states why you would call it. Nothing redundant and the purpose is front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden, and it does state that the result is the set of users who can review a timesheet plus the field name (`reviewerAccountId`) a caller will need. It leaves the shape of those user objects unexplored, but it is adequate for this simple two-parameter lookup.

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 coverage is 100%, so both `accountId` and the `view` enum are already fully documented in the schema, including the compact/full tradeoff. The description adds nothing about either parameter, 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 names a specific verb and resource — retrieving the users who can review a given user's timesheet — which is clearly distinct from sibling approval tools like tempo_get_timesheet_approval_status or tempo_get_timesheet_approvals_waiting. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings, so it lands just below a 5.

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?

It gives an explicit use case and downstream consumer: use this to source `reviewerAccountId` for tempo_submit_timesheet and the other approval actions. That is a clear workflow context, though it does not say when not to use it or name a directly competing alternative.

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