get_key_result

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's additional disclosure of failure when IDs not found adds value. However, it does not elaborate on other behavioral aspects like pagination or permissions, but given the annotations, the bar is met.

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 very concise, consisting of a single purpose sentence plus two-line usage guidance. Every part earns its place with no unnecessary words.

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 simple get tool with good annotations and schema coverage, the description is adequate but could be improved by indicating what specific details are returned (e.g., fields in the key result). Since no output schema exists, a brief note on return content would enhance completeness.

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 both parameters have descriptions in the schema ('Parent objective ID', 'Key result ID'). The description adds no further semantic detail beyond what is already provided, so baseline score 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?

The description clearly states 'Get key result details' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_key_results' (which lists multiple KRs) and 'manage_key_result' (which creates/updates), making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicit 'USE WHEN' and 'FAILS WHEN' sections provide clear guidance on when to use the tool and what to do if it fails, including recommending 'list_key_results' to obtain valid IDs.

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