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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive traits. The description adds valuable behavioral nuance: KR 'current' values are month-scoped, not YTD or projected, and cash/deposit numbers may need refreshing from other tools. It also enumerates bindable live sources, which informs how results may be used. This goes beyond annotation defaults.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and the critical temporal caveat before addressing cross-tool references and defaults. The bindable-sources list is long but relevant, and each sentence earns its place. Slightly dense, but organized and readable.

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 there is no output schema, the description explains essential interpretive context (month-scoped KRs, refresh sources, live bindable sources) and default behavior. It does not describe the return shape or fields in detail, but the tool is a read-only list and the description covers the likely pitfalls an agent would face.

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%, so the schema fully documents year, limit, all_years, and companyId. The description restates the year-default behavior with the all_years nuance, adding marginal clarity but not truly new semantics. With full schema coverage, the baseline 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 begins with 'List objectives and key results for the company,' which is a specific verb+resource statement that clearly distinguishes get_okrs from mutation siblings like create_objective, create_key_result, and update_key_result. The added temporal clarification ('Each KR current is THIS calendar month') further sharpens what the tool returns.

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 direct cross-tool routing guidance: 'Refresh cash numbers from get_financial_summary... and Amazon deposits from get_monthly_trends,' telling the agent when this tool is not the source for those figures. It also clarifies the year default and all_years override. It stops short of a formal when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement but provides clear contextual direction.

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