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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds meaningful context: results are permission-scoped ('OKRs you can see') and the output is aggregated/rolled up rather than raw records. It stops short of describing report size, pagination, or aggregation rules.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler, with the action and scope front-loaded ahead of the use case. The trailing quoted question is mildly redundant but earns its place as a routing cue.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should ideally carry more of the return-shape burden; the rollup dimensions hint at structure but the two undocumented parameters (level, teamId) and the absence of any default-behavior statement leave gaps for a filtering report tool.

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 only 33% (only cycleId is documented), so the description must compensate and does not. It name-drops 'level' and 'team' as rollup dimensions without explaining that they are filters, and 'status' is mentioned even though no such parameter exists, which risks misleading the agent.

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 and resource ('Generate a progress report') plus scope ('across the OKRs you can see') and the rollup dimensions (level, team, status). It is distinguishable from the many get_*/list_* siblings, though it never names an alternative to contrast against.

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 line 'Use this to answer "how are we tracking?"' gives a concrete usage scenario, so context is implied rather than absent. However, it offers no when-not guidance and never mentions why an agent would pick this over get_at_risk_okrs, get_okr_tree, or get_check_in_compliance.

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