Workboard Get User Key Results Tool

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description still adds useful behavioral context beyond that: the default result scope is current-year only, and the tool is deliberately limited to WorkBoard user IDs rather than names/roles. It does not need to describe returns because an output schema exists.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence, then layered usage notes and a default-behavior caveat. The 'Skills layer' sentence is slightly tangential but earns its place by preventing a common misuse (passing a role instead of an ID).

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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, readOnlyHint, and an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, ID resolution path, and default filtering. 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and both parameters (user_id, include_prior_years) are already documented in the schema, so baseline 3 applies. The description restates the user-ID provenance and the prior-years default, adding only the organizational context that IDs must be sourced elsewhere.

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 (for a specific WorkBoard user by user ID). The scope phrase 'for a specific WorkBoard user' implicitly separates it from the sibling workboard_get_my_key_results_tool, so an agent can pick correctly without opening schemas.

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 an explicit use case ('review a direct report's key results before a 1:1'), names the prerequisite tools (workboard_get_teams_tool, workboard_get_team_members_tool) for resolving a name to a user ID, and warns that the skills layer — not this tool — maps roles like 'direct report' to IDs. Clear when-to-use plus prerequisites.

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