Workboard Get My Key Results Tool

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: the default year scoping and the include_prior_years override, plus the shape of returned data (names, current values, targets, IDs). No auth or pagination notes, but the added context is substantive.

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, front-loaded sentences: purpose, usage pairing, then the scoping caveat. Every sentence carries information and nothing is padded.

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?

Read-only annotations plus an output schema mean safety and return formatting need no elaboration; the description nonetheless sketches the returned fields. For a zero-required-parameter list tool, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 parameter is already fully documented at 100% schema description coverage, including its default. The description restates the default-year behavior, which is helpful reinforcement but adds no new semantics, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('List'), resource ('key results (metrics)') and scope ('the current user owns or has access to'), which separates it from the sibling workboard_get_user_key_results_tool. An agent can identify what this returns without opening the 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 states the use case ('find metric IDs and see current progress before updating with workboard_update_key_result_tool'), naming the paired mutation tool. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' or a direct pointer to the user-scoped sibling, so it falls just short of full routing guidance.

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