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

Beyond the read-only and non-destructive annotations, the description discloses that only active goals are included, that progress and on_track are computed, and that amounts use currency units rather than cents. It does not explain the status calculation, ordering, pagination, or empty-result behavior, but those are modest gaps for a simple list operation.

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 compact sentences front-load the operation and scope, then provide useful output and unit details. There is no redundant or promotional wording.

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?

Combined with the schema and annotations, the definition provides enough information to invoke this simple one-parameter read correctly and interpret important amount values. Because there is no output schema, additional detail about the returned fields or the meaning of on_track would improve completeness, but its absence does not prevent correct selection or 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, 'for a ledger' partially compensates by explaining that the sole ledger_id parameter scopes the results. It does not explicitly name ledger_id in the description or explain how to obtain a valid ID; the currency-unit note concerns returned amounts rather than this parameter.

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, resource, and scope: listing active budget goals for a ledger, including computed progress and on_track status. This distinguishes the operation conceptually from related budget tools, but it does not explicitly differentiate any sibling.

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 active-only scope and inclusion of progress and on_track status make the intended use case clear when an agent needs goal monitoring for a specific ledger. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative for inactive goals or broader budget analysis.

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