tempo_search_team_memberships

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds two genuinely useful behavioral facts beyond that: inactive memberships are included in results (a common source of surprise), and the operation is issued via POST despite being a read.

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, zero padding, with the core action and scope front-loaded and the behavioral caveat immediately after.

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 zero-required-parameter search tool with no output schema, the essentials are present, but the description never addresses pagination behavior or how results are shaped, and it leaves the search-vs-get distinction unresolved. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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%, with all six parameters documented — the 'view' enum in particular is explained in depth. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (Tempo team memberships) and names the filter dimensions (teams, accounts, roles). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling tempo_get_team_memberships, so an agent must infer that 'search' means multi-criteria lookup while 'get' is the single-team variant.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of the sibling tempo_get_team_memberships, which is the obvious alternative for retrieving memberships. The filter list only implies usage; nothing tells the agent when this tool is preferable or what prerequisites (e.g. Tempo admin access) apply.

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