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

Annotations already cover the full safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds real value by enumerating what the summary contains (owned KRs due for check-in, at-risk objectives, recent activity), which is the only signal into return shape since no output schema exists. It omits any mention of scope ('my' implies the authenticated user) or how staleDays reshapes 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, purpose front-loaded, zero filler. Every clause contributes content the agent needs to decide relevance.

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 no-output-schema composite tool, the description partially compensates by listing summary contents, but it leaves the one parameter unexplained and gives no sense of scope or result size. Adequate but with a clear gap given the schema carries no param documentation.

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 0% and the single parameter staleDays (default 7, range 1-90) is completely absent from the description. With low coverage the description must compensate, and it does not — an agent gets no hint that a staleness window controls what appears in 'recent activity.'

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 states a specific aggregation: key results due for check-in, objectives at risk, and recent activity — an agent can tell this is a composite 'attention/status' view rather than a raw list. However, it never names or contrasts with the obvious siblings it aggregates (get_at_risk_okrs, list_check_ins), so differentiation 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?

'Ideal starting point for a weekly update' gives an implied usage context, but there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives like get_at_risk_okrs for a deeper at-risk view. Usage is suggested rather than prescribed.

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