list_key_results

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=false. The description adds the failure mode (objective_id not found) and the return structure, which are useful behavioral details beyond annotations. No contradiction; the description does not claim mutation or idempotency.

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 extremely concise, with a clear purpose statement followed by labeled sections (USE WHEN, Returns, FAILS WHEN). Every sentence earns its place, and the most critical information (purpose) is front-loaded.

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?

Given the output schema exists (and the description already lists the return fields), plus annotations covering read-only behavior, the description is nearly complete. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit pagination or ordering details, but for a per-objective key result list, that is likely acceptable and the failure condition is well handled.

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% (objective_id is described as 'Objective ID'), so the baseline is 3. The description's reference to 'for an objective' and the failure condition slightly clarifies the parameter's role, but does not add syntax or format details beyond what the schema already 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?

The description states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('key results') with a clear scope ('for an objective'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_key_result' (singular) and 'list_objectives' (different resource), and explicitly mentions the return fields (ID, name, target_value, current_value).

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?

Provides explicit 'USE WHEN' conditions ('What are the KRs?', 'Show metrics') and a 'FAILS WHEN' clause that names the condition (objective_id not found) and the alternative tool (list_objectives). This gives clear routing guidance beyond inference.

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