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

Annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description only needs to add context. It adds the workspace scoping but says nothing about ordering, filtering by status, or pagination behavior.

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?

A single sentence with no waste, and the resource is front-loaded. It is perhaps slightly too terse for a tool with an undocumented filter parameter, but it is well structured.

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 simple read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the resource and workspace scope adequately. However, it leaves the status filter and the nature of the returned list (ordering, whether archived cycles are included) entirely unexplained.

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?

The single status parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate, and it does not. It never mentions the status filter, its four enum values, or what happens when it is omitted (all cycles presumably).

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?

Clearly states a specific verb (List) and resource (OKR cycles), and even clarifies what a cycle is (quarters, halves) plus its scope (your workspace). It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling get_current_cycle, but the resource is concrete enough to distinguish on name alone.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as get_current_cycle (for the active cycle) or list_objectives. The agent gets no signal about whether this is for browsing cycle definitions or fetching the current one.

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