list_user_okrs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the need for open_id and the optional period_ids filter, but it does not describe the response format, pagination behavior, access permissions, or potential errors. 'Official API + UAT' hints at environment status but is vague. For a list operation, it is adequate but not exhaustive.

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?

The description is three concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: the first states the function, the second gives a prerequisite and how to fulfill it, and the third explains optional filtering. No fluff or redundancy.

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 list tool with a fully documented schema, the description covers the primary use case, required input, and filtering. It could be more complete by differentiating from get_okrs or mentioning any output structure (though there is no output schema). The 'UAT' reference is ambiguous but overall the context is sufficient for a typical agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema covers all six parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds cross-tool guidance by pointing to get_login_status and search_contacts for obtaining user_id, and list_okr_periods for period_ids, which provides additional context beyond the schema. However, it does not add deeper semantics for parameters like limit or offset.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'List a user's OKRs.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the mention of 'a user's' distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_okrs (which likely targets the current user) and list_okr_periods. The requirement for open_id further clarifies its scope.

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 description provides clear context on how to use the tool: 'Requires the user's open_id (get yours via get_login_status or search_contacts)' and 'Filter by period_ids to narrow to a specific quarter.' It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use it, but it gives actionable prerequisites and filtering advice.

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