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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes the defaulting behavior (period falls back to the current quarter), which is genuinely useful context, but says nothing about return shape, ordering, or whether progress is a percentage or a raw value.

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?

One compact sentence, front-loaded with the resource and ending with the actionable default. Slightly awkward phrasing ('of a period with the progress') but no wasted text.

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-optional-param read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers what it returns at a high level (objectives plus progress) and the default behavior. A brief note on the return container or progress units would make it fully self-sufficient.

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% and the single parameter already carries an example format. The description adds meaning the schema lacks — that omitting the period defaults to the current quarter — which is the key semantic for this optional param.

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 the resource precisely — Objectives (OKR) for a period, including progress — so an agent knows what it retrieves. It doesn't contrast with any sibling, but the sibling list contains no overlapping goal/OKR tool, so the ambiguity risk is low.

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 default-to-current-quarter note implies the main calling scenario (omit the period for the current quarter), but there is no explicit when-to-use framing, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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