tempo_search_accounts

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is already known. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the 'view' parameter behavior is explained in detail (compact strips image/avatar URLs, full returns payload untouched, no field projection). This goes beyond the schema enum and explains why there is no field projection, which is valuable for an agent deciding how to invoke the tool.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and a practical routing hint. The second sentence earns its place by pointing to the sibling tool that needs the resolved id. No wasted words.

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 search tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains the key cross-tool dependency (resolving keys to ids for tempo_get_account) and the view behavior. It does not describe pagination defaults beyond what the schema says (limit default 50, offset), but the schema already covers that. The only minor gap is not explicitly stating that results are a list, but that is implied by 'Search' and the filter parameters.

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 all 7 parameters. The description adds the key insight that this tool resolves account keys to numeric ids, which is not in the schema. However, it does not add much beyond that for the individual parameters, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Search') and resource ('Tempo accounts'), and enumerates the filter dimensions (id, key, status, global flag). It also distinguishes itself from tempo_get_account by explicitly noting this is how you resolve an account key to the numeric id that tempo_get_account needs. This clearly differentiates it from the sibling tempo_get_accounts and tempo_get_account.

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 gives a clear use case: resolving an account key to a numeric id for tempo_get_account. It implies this is the search/filter tool among the account siblings, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer tempo_get_accounts over this tool or vice versa. The context is clear enough for an agent to select it for search/filter scenarios, but explicit exclusions are absent.

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