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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description usefully reveals the hierarchical return shape, but says nothing about auth, scope, or how deeply the tree is populated.

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 purpose front-loaded and the use case second. No filler, though it is fairly terse for a hierarchy tool.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description adequately conveys the tree structure an agent gets back. The omission of any mention of cycleId's role leaves a small gap, but the core need is met.

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%: rootObjectiveId is documented in the schema, but cycleId has no description anywhere. The tool description mentions no parameters at all, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented cycleId.

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 ('Get the OKR hierarchy as a tree') and describes the structure returned (company → team → personal). It implicitly contrasts with flat siblings like list_objectives and get_objective by emphasizing the tree form, but never names an alternative 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?

Gives a use context ('understanding organizational alignment and spotting orphaned objectives') but no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives or when-not-to-use. The agent can infer intent, but routing against list_objectives/get_objective is left to inference.

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