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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context: results are ordered by last-used, and the tool is meant to be used before enrichment selection. No contradictions with annotations, and the added ordering information goes beyond what annotations state.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and usage context. It avoids redundancy and clearly conveys the reason for calling the tool and the next step. No fluff or unnecessary details.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage timing, result ordering, and how to use the results (pass ids onward). It hints at the output containing ids and the ability to pick several, which is sufficient for correct invocation.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema is trivially 100% covered and the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters; it adds no parameter-related info, which is appropriate for a parameterless 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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'saved goals,' and clarifies these are goals already extracted for this office. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly positioning it as a prerequisite to cortex_choose_enrichment, making it unambiguous which tool is meant.

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?

It provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this before choosing enrichment on a new source so you can offer those goals... instead of inventing a new one.' It also instructs the agent on the follow-up action ('Then pass the chosen ids as goal_ids to cortex_choose_enrichment'), covering the workflow sequence.

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