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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral detail — results are limited to 'the OKRs you can see' (permission scoping) — but says nothing about the shape of the report or how teams interact with results.

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 tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the use case trailing. No wasted words, though the second sentence is soft guidance rather than critical information.

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 read-only reporting tool with no output schema and only two params, this is roughly adequate — the agent knows what it gets (a compliance report over a window). It falls short on teamId semantics and on any indication of what the report contains.

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 only 50%: 'days' is documented in the schema, but 'teamId' has no description anywhere. The description's phrase 'in a given period' loosely gestures at the look-back window but never explains team scoping or what happens when teamId is omitted.

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+resource ('Report who has and has not submitted check-ins') and scopes it to a period and to visible OKRs. It contrasts implicitly with the raw 'list_check_ins' sibling by reporting compliance rather than listing entries, though it never names the sibling explicitly.

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?

'Useful for a weekly team review' hints at when to reach for it, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not, and no mention of the obvious alternative 'list_check_ins' or 'get_my_week'. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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