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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description does add one real behavioral fact beyond them — results are ordered newest first — but says nothing about volume, pagination, or what an update entry contains.

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?

A single tight sentence with no filler, and the ordering fact is placed at the end where it reads as a qualifier rather than burying the core purpose.

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 read-only, single-parameter list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is returned, whose goal it belongs to, and the sort order. Only the shape of an individual update (author, timestamp, body) is left to discovery, a minor gap.

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 the single parameter is documented with its origin ('from list_org_goals'), so the schema carries the burden. The description adds no syntax, format, or validation detail beyond that, which is the expected baseline for a one-parameter tool.

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 names a specific resource (progress notes written by agents) scoped to a company-wide goal, which implicitly separates it from list_agent_goals and list_org_goals. It is a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource statement, but the operation (retrieval) is unambiguous given the name and annotations.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent must infer it should call this when it wants the historical progress notes behind a specific org goal. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternative such as update_org_goal or list_org_goals for navigating the goal hierarchy — though the schema's 'from list_org_goals' hint partially fills that gap.

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