tempo_search_team_memberships

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers safety, and the description adds the behavioral trait that inactive memberships are included, which is valuable and not in annotations. However, it does not disclose other behaviors such as response shape, pagination, or how filters combine. Given annotations carry the safety burden, this is a moderate addition, but not rich enough for a higher score.

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?

The description is concise and front-loaded with the action and resource, containing two short sentences with no redundancy. It could have included usage guidance without losing brevity, but as written it is tightly structured and efficient, earning a high score for conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (six optional parameters, no output schema) and the presence of annotations for safety, the description covers the core operation and notes inactive membership inclusion. However, it lacks guidance on how it differs from the closely related sibling 'tempo_get_team_memberships', which is a significant contextual gap. The schema handles parameter details well, but the description could be more complete by addressing the sibling relationship.

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 six parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), and the description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what is already in the schema. For instance, it mentions 'across teams, accounts, and roles' which maps to teamIds, accountIds, and roleIds, but these are already explained as filters. The description provides no additional semantic value, so the baseline of 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 clearly states the action (search) and resource (team memberships) and indicates scope across teams, accounts, and roles. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling 'tempo_get_team_memberships', which also retrieves memberships, leaving some ambiguity about the distinction between search and get. The verb 'search' implies filtering, but a clear differentiation would strengthen the purpose.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the very similar sibling 'tempo_get_team_memberships' or other search tools like 'tempo_search_accounts'. The description does not state conditions like 'use this for multi-criteria filtering' or 'use get for a single membership'. This omission is notable given the direct sibling overlap, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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