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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that results include progress/type/status and that filtering is supported, but says nothing about defaults, ordering, or pagination.

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 terse sentences with no filler; the core purpose is front-loaded before the filtering note.

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 simple read-only tool with two optional scalar filters and complete schema, the description is nearly complete. It could state the unfiltered default behavior, but the absence of required parameters and the read-only annotations already imply safe, flexible use.

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%, with each parameter documented ('Filter by status', 'Filter by category'), so the description adds no extra semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clear verb-resource pair ('List goals') and names the returned fields (progress, type, status). It is distinct from create_goal and update_goal, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other list_* siblings; the resource name keeps ambiguity low.

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?

Implies a read-only retrieval use case and mentions optional filtering by status or category, but gives no explicit guidance about when to choose this over search or other list tools, or whether multiple filters can be combined.

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