tempo_get_timesheet_reviewers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe read-only nature is covered. The description adds the behavioral context that the result is a list of reviewer users and that it feeds downstream approval actions, but it does not disclose response shape, pagination, or error behavior. With the annotation covering the safety profile, a 3 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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the usage guidance is packed into the second sentence without redundancy.

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 simple read-only lookup with one required parameter and full schema coverage, the description is nearly complete. It clearly ties the tool into the approval workflow. The only minor gap is that it doesn't describe the response shape or whether multiple reviewers can be returned, but the output schema is absent and the description's workflow context is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 schema already documents both parameters. The description adds the semantic context that `accountId` identifies the timesheet owner and that the result supplies `reviewerAccountId`, but it does not add format or syntax details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb ('Retrieve'), a specific resource ('the users who can review a given user's timesheet'), and immediately distinguishes it from sibling approval actions by naming its output as the source for `reviewerAccountId`. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and differentiates it from the many timesheet approval siblings.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool: to source `reviewerAccountId` for `tempo_submit_timesheet` and the other approval actions. This is direct usage guidance that routes the agent to the correct workflow context and implies it should be called before those actions.

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