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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the practical rationale (valid goal IDs for program creation), but says nothing about ordering, locale effects, pagination, or coverage. With an output schema present, the bar for return-format disclosure is lower, so a 3 is fair.

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 sentences, zero waste, with the capability statement front-loaded and the usage trigger following. Nothing to trim.

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?

Output schema exists and annotations are complete, so the description only needs to justify a simple read. It covers what the tool returns and why, but the undocumented `locale` parameter and the team-vs-global scope ambiguity are small remaining holes.

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?

The single parameter `locale` has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it – no allowed values, no default, no statement that it is optional. With low coverage the description is supposed to compensate, and it does not.

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?

Specific verb+resource: returns fitness goals available for programs. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling list tools (list_equipment, list_muscle_groups, list_stock_programs). Minor friction: the name says 'team goals' while the description says 'fitness goals', leaving a small ambiguity about whether the list is team-scoped or global.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it: "Use when creating or generating programs to get valid goal IDs." That connects it to generate_program/create_program siblings without naming them directly. No when-not-to-use or exclusion guidance, which keeps it below a 5.

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