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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description reveals valuable non-obvious behavior: the data is derived live, statuses include done/empty/blocked/n_a/unknown, OKRs show 'blocked' until mission and vision are set, and agents must escalate rather than invent OKR numbers. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs.

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 information-dense and front-loaded, with every sentence contributing value. It is slightly verbose due to the enumerated tenet categories and the repeated emphasis on mission/vision in the WISDOM-FIRST section, but this is justified given the lack of an output 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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explains what the tool returns: per-tenet status, a score, the next best setup step, and the tool to fix each gap. It also covers live derivation and key constraints. For a read-only status tool with a single well-documented parameter, nothing essential is missing.

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 fully documents companyId with 100% coverage, including the membership constraint. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, 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 names a specific verb ('Get') and a well-defined resource ('the company's core-tenet setup completeness'), and it enumerates the exact tenet categories covered. It also differentiates this tool from other read-only get_* tools by stating its purpose: knowing what a company still needs set up before strategy work.

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?

It explicitly says when to use the tool: to determine what a company still needs set up before doing strategy work. It adds exclusionary guidance around not authoring or inventing mission, vision, and OKRs. It does not name alternative tools or explicitly say when not to use it, but the context is clear enough.

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