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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses almost nothing: no explanation of pagination, no mention that active_only defaults to true (so inactive plans are hidden unless the caller opts in), and no auth/scope requirements. 'For the org' is the only behavioral scoping hint.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Everything present is about the tool's core purpose.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the operation is simple. However, with no annotations and a hidden default filter (active_only=true), the description leaves the agent without enough context to know that inactive plans are excluded by default.

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 50%: active_only is documented in the schema, and limit is self-describing via its min/max/default constraints. The description itself adds no parameter meaning, so it neither compensates for the undocumented limit nor surfaces the active_only default behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema does most of the work.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (OKR cycles / strategic plans) scoped to the org. It is distinguishable from plan_get, plan_set, and plan_close by virtue of being the listing operation, though it never explicitly names these siblings.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as memory_strategic_plan_get for a single plan or memory_strategic_objective_status_list for objectives. The agent must infer that this is the top-level enumeration tool.

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