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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses the write-tier approval behavior, the difference between from-now-on and just-once approvals, and the 'card is the yes; do not re-ask' interaction rule. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavioral context annotations alone don't carry.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the workflow context is useful, but the approval bracket is fairly long and the 'no way to measure progress' sentence is explanatory rather than strictly necessary. Still, nothing is redundant enough to feel padded.

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 combination of schema, annotations, and description covers what the tool does, the approval flow, and the follow-on tools. The main gap is that it doesn't mention what the call returns (e.g., an objective ID to feed into create_key_result) and there is no output schema to fill that in.

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 each parameter already documented, so the baseline applies. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond reinforcing that title should be aspirational, which the schema already states.

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 'Create a new objective (the O in OKR)' with a clear verb and resource, and further defines objectives as 'aspirational goals.' It differentiates from sibling tools by explicitly placing this before generate_key_results and create_key_result in the OKR workflow.

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?

Gives a clear when-to-use signal ('Call it on the first clear ask') and a direct post-create workflow: use generate_key_results, then create_key_result. It doesn't explicitly contrast with update_objective or delete_objective, but the workflow guidance is concrete enough for routing.

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