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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that the proposal is NOT applied immediately, that it lands in a human review queue, that it returns an approval link, and that a human can approve, edit or reject. The annotations only say this is non-read-only, non-destructive and non-idempotent; the description supplies the actual workflow semantics.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with what happens and what is returned, then the usage condition and the alternative. No filler or restated metadata.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description usefully explains the return (a review-queue link), so that gap is covered. But for a 6-parameter tool with a nested keyResults array and multiple enums, the absence of any parameter guidance or validation rules leaves the calling contract incomplete.

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 17% (just the timeline field), yet the description names no parameters at all. The nested keyResults shape, the level enum (COMPANY/TEAM/PERSONAL), teamId, and the unit/direction enums are left entirely undocumented, so the low-coverage schema is not compensated for.

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 ('propose') and a specific resource composite ('a complete objective with its key results'), and immediately clarifies the outcome. It is distinguishable from create_objective and update_objective without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('when drafting a new quarter's OKRs') and names an alternative for the opposite case ('for small edits to an existing objective, use update_objective instead'). It does not, however, disambiguate against the likely-confusable sibling create_objective or propose_strategic_goal, so the routing is not fully closed.

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