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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only.' Beyond that, it adds valuable behavioral context: the cap mechanism (factory-self credited at most a fifth) and that the result feeds the factory_landings_aligned_pct_28d KR measure source. This goes beyond the annotations without 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 dense but every clause earns its place by explaining a metric, a cap rule, additional outputs, or usage triggers. The standalone 'Read-only.' is redundant given the annotations, and the long single paragraph could be better structured, but there is no fluff and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the metric definitions, the cap, the additional reported values (raw factory-self share, pre-rule unstamped landings), and the intended use cases. It does not specify an exact return format, but the named output fields give sufficient context for an agent to understand what will be returned.

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 100%: the only parameter, companyId, is already documented as 'FreedomOS company id to act within (you must be a member).' The description only says 'for the current company,' which adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly defines the tool as a census of KR2 alignment over stamped builder landings, naming the specific metric (landings_aligned_pct_28d) and its components. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_factory_floor or get_okrs by describing a specific factory-alignment metric, though it relies heavily on domain jargon and does not explicitly contrast with alternatives.

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 explicit use cases: 'when the operator or the okr-health sweep asks how aligned the factory's output is, whether the factory-self share is inside its cap, or why the KR2 number reads unmeasured.' This is clear contextual guidance, but it does not mention when not to use it or point to alternative tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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