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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so 'Read-only' largely repeats structured data. The one added trait is that only ACTIVE goals are returned, which is genuine behavioral context the annotations do not carry; no pagination or return detail is given.

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?

Two short clauses, scope stated first, safety second, with zero filler. Every word earns its place.

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 one-optional-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers scope and read-only nature adequately. It stops short of describing what a goal record contains, but that is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 coverage is 100%, so the single optional agent_id parameter is already fully documented. The description's 'for one agent, or across the organization' merely restates the schema's omit-for-all semantics rather than adding format or edge-case detail.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List active goals') and clarifies the two scopes: one agent or organization-wide. It implicitly separates itself from set_goals via 'Read-only', though it never names the mutation sibling directly.

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?

The two scope modes ('for one agent, or across the organization') give implied context for when to call it, but no explicit exclusions or named alternatives (e.g., set_goals for writing, list_outcome_units for other entities).

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