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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered without help. The description's contribution is naming the returned fields (objective, plan, progress, runner task), which is genuinely useful because no output schema exists. It says nothing about pagination, ordering, or the default/max limit behavior, which is the remaining behavioral gap.

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?

It is a single short sentence fragment with no padding, but the fragment form is what makes it vague — the same length spent on a clause like "List an agent's goals and their objective, plan, status and progress" would be both concise and clear.

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 three parameters, no output schema and rich annotations, the description partially fills the biggest hole by describing the shape of returned goals. It still omits filter/pagination semantics and any routing versus the many sibling list tools, which is a real gap for a list tool with a status enum and limits.

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 only 33% — just agent_id ("from list_agents") is documented, while limit and status have no schema descriptions. The description mentions "status" only as a returned field, not as a filter, and never mentions limit or the 1-300 range, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 is a noun-phrase field enumeration ("objective, success criteria, plan, status, progress, current step...") rather than an explicit verb+resource statement; an agent must infer from the name that this lists goals for an agent. It does distinguish content from sibling mutations like create_agent_goal, but nothing separates it from list_org_goals or list_agent_tasks.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of the alternatives (list_org_goals, list_agent_tasks, get_agent), and no prerequisites such as needing an agent_id obtained from list_agents. The agent is left to infer the calling context entirely from the name.

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