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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it discloses write-tier approval behavior, including first-use approval, from-now-on vs. just-once approval, and an instruction not to re-ask in chat. This complements the annotations' readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true rather than contradicting them.

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 compact and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by return behavior and approval guidance. The bracketed approval instructions are dense but relevant; no sentence is redundant with the schema.

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 low-complexity tool with no output schema, the description explains what the tool returns and how to proceed with the results. It also includes approval mechanics, which are important for successful invocation. It could be more detailed about the exact shape of the returned suggestions, but it is sufficient for an agent to select and use the tool.

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?

The input schema already covers all 3 parameters with 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds general context about using company mission, vision, financials, and existing KRs, but it does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 and resource: generate key result suggestions for an objective. It also names the downstream tool create_key_result and explains that it returns suggestions rather than creating them, clearly differentiating it from its sibling create_key_result.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when generating context-aware key result suggestions for an objective. It names create_key_result as the next step after suggestions are returned, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it against alternatives like create_objective or update_key_result.

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