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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description aligns by mentioning 'write-tier'. It adds context about the live connection and system prompt impact, and describes the approval flow. This goes beyond the annotations, providing useful behavioral detail. No contradiction.

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 concise, with the primary purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. The second paragraph adds operational details about approvals without excessive length. It is well-structured and to the point.

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 description covers the core action and effect, and the schema covers parameters. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not describe return values or any side effects beyond the live connection. It also does not mention prerequisites like company membership (though schema mentions it). For a mutating tool with destructive hint, some additional context about what happens to existing links might be helpful, but the schema handles that. Overall, it is reasonably complete but not exhaustive.

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 has 100% coverage for all parameters, each with descriptions. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what's already in the schema; it only references get_okrs in the schema description. Since the schema fully documents parameters, the description adds no extra value, warranting a baseline score of 3.

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 states the verb 'link' and the resource 'agent to company OKRs', and explains the effect: creates a live connection and includes OKR context in the system prompt. It is specific and distinguishes from other agent-related tools by focusing on OKR linking. However, it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 provides some timing guidance ('Call it on the first clear ask') and notes approval requirements, but it does not discuss when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when not to use it or which other tools might be relevant). There is no explicit 'when to use' vs 'when not to use' guidance, so this is minimal.

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