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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine behavioral value by defining what counts as at-risk via the four criteria, though it does not describe the returned shape, ordering, or severity of the flagged OKRs.

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 tightly packed sentences: the purpose and criteria are front-loaded before the usage hint. No filler or redundancy.

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?

With annotations carrying the safety profile and no output schema to explain, the description is largely sufficient for a read-only query tool. The 'approaching end date' criterion, which has no corresponding parameter to tune, is mentioned but its handling is left unstated.

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 100%, so the schema already documents staleDays, progressThreshold, and confidenceThreshold with defaults and ranges. The description's criteria loosely echo those parameters but add no syntax or interpretation beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (identify at-risk OKRs) and enumerates the four qualifying signals (low progress, stale check-ins, low confidence, approaching end date). Clear and concrete, but it never explicitly names or contrasts a sibling like get_check_in_compliance or get_my_week, so the distinction is left to inference.

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?

"Use this to prepare for a review meeting or a weekly nudge" gives a clear situational trigger for invoking the tool. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when another tool is the better choice, so no explicit exclusion guidance.

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