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 covered by structured data. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — results are hard-scoped to the caller's permission scope and never leak outside it — but omits pagination/limit behavior and how archived objectives are handled by default.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then the filter capability, then the permission caveat. No filler, no restating of the tool name, and each sentence adds new 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?

With no output schema and seven all-optional parameters, the description carries more burden than it takes on: 'with progress' is not explained (per-object percentage? key-result rollup?), the default exclusion of archived objectives and the 100-item limit cap go unmentioned, and there is no hint of result ordering or pagination.

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 only 14% (just ownerId), so the description must compensate. It does: it names five of the seven filter dimensions (level, status, cycle, team, owner), which maps cleanly onto level, status, cycleId, teamId and ownerId. It leaves limit and includeArchived undocumented, but the coverage of the filter axis is the more important semantic gap to fill.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('List objectives') plus two value-adds: progress inclusion and permission scoping. Distinguishable from sibling get_objective (single) and list_key_results (different resource), but it does not explicitly name an alternative or state how it differs from get_okr_tree beyond the resource noun.

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?

The filter list implies the usage context (browse objectives by level/status/cycle/team/owner), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no named alternative such as get_okr_tree or get_objective, and no statement of when a caller should prefer this over those siblings.

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