tempo_insights

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the extractive nature and that it separates facts from inferred themes, which is genuinely useful. However, it fails to mention anything about authentication requirements (the sibling tempo_auth_status hints auth is a real concern), output format, failure modes for non-Tempo URLs, or whether it caches results. For a tool that processes external URLs, these are material gaps.

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?

A single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the primary action and then enumerates the output artifacts. No wasted words, and the extractive/facts-vs-inference clause earns its place by adding behavioral nuance. It is concise without being terse.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose and output structure well, but with no annotations and no output schema, an agent has to infer the return shape, error behavior (e.g., what happens for non-Tempo URLs or paywalled content), and whether auth is required. For a tool that ingests an external URL and produces a multi-part brief, these operational details matter. The facts-vs-inference separation is a nice touch but doesn't compensate for missing auth and error semantics.

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 only 33%. The description names the focus parameter's purpose indirectly through the research-brief concept, but it doesn't explain what 'focus' does mechanically (narrow the extraction? bias the output structure?) beyond the example lens. The url parameter is obvious from the description ('Tempo.co article'), and include_source_text is self-explanatory from its boolean type. The description adds marginal context but doesn't fully compensate for the coverage gap on 'focus'.

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 ('Turn into a research brief'), a clear resource (Tempo.co article), and enumerates the output structure (executive summary, key claims, named entities, timeline signals, etc.). It also distinguishes itself by characterizing its approach as 'extractive' with an explicit facts-vs-inference separation, which is unique among the listed 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus tempo_article, tempo_compare, or tempo_search. An agent cannot tell from the description whether it should run tempo_insights or tempo_article for a single article, or whether tempo_compare handles multi-article comparison. Sibling names suggest the comparison tool exists, but the description never mentions alternatives or exclusions.

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