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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only one piece of behavior beyond that: results include 'progress'. It says nothing about ordering, pagination, or how many goals are returned, and there is no output schema to fill that 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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler and no restating of the title verbatim. The appositive 'the shared objectives every agent aligns to' is somewhat redundant with 'company-wide goals' but does add a semantic gloss on what an org goal is.

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?

This is a simple read-only list tool with one optional enum parameter and annotations covering safety, so a short description is defensible. Still, for a tool that returns 'progress' data with no output schema, the agent is left guessing at the shape of results and the effect of the default status filter.

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 0% and the single parameter (status, enum with default 'active') is never mentioned in the description. The enum values are largely self-explanatory, but the default of 'active' means non-active goals are silently excluded by default, and the description does nothing to surface or compensate for that filtering behavior.

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 identifies the resource ('the owner's company-wide goals ... with progress') and implicitly says it retrieves them, but never uses an explicit verb like 'list'/'fetch'. 'Company-wide' hints at the distinction from sibling list_agent_goals, yet no sibling is named, so the agent must infer the org-level vs agent-level split.

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 exclusion of alternatives, and no mention of when to prefer list_agent_goals, list_org_goal_updates, or create_org_goal instead. The agent gets a topic, not a routing rule.

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