Workboard Get Team Objectives Tool

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

Annotations only cover readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries the rest and does so well: it discloses that sub-team objectives are excluded, that the date semantics are overlap-based with past quarters included, and a costly performance trait ('slow... takes about a minute'). Latency and scope-exclusion disclosure is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before invoking.

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 paragraphs, each earning its place: core behavior and window semantics first, then the decision context, then the prerequisite. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation. Scope rules, exclusions, latency expectation, and the prerequisite lookup tool are all covered, leaving nothing an agent needs missing before calling it.

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 coverage is 100% and all three parameters are documented with format patterns and inclusive-window semantics, so the baseline is already met. The description adds the non-obvious selection rule that the window matches on date overlap rather than containment, which is meaningfully more than the schema provides.

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 and resource plus the key scope rule: a team's objectives whose dates overlap a window, past quarters included. The sub-team exclusion further sharpens the scope. However, it never names or contrasts with the closely-related siblings workboard_get_objectives_tool and workboard_get_my_objectives_tool, so sibling discrimination still requires inference from the name.

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?

Gives a concrete use case ('quarterly OKR reviews or snapshots, e.g. Q1 after March 31') and routes the agent to workboard_get_teams_tool for obtaining team IDs. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or which sibling to pick for non-team-scoped objective queries.

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