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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read behavior is covered. The description adds some output-oriented behavior by mentioning progress, gap, and status, but it does not disclose filtering semantics, defaults, or what is returned when no parameters are supplied.

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 a single concise phrase, front-loaded with the core noun 'Financial goals' and followed by the data attributes. Every word earns its place and no fluff is present.

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 tool that has 2 parameters with no schema descriptions and no explanations in the description, an agent cannot determine how to invoke it correctly (e.g., whether household_id must be minted from a household list, or what values include_inactive expects). The output schema exists, but the input side is left entirely to guesswork, and the complexity is not trivial enough to justify such a terse description.

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 0% and the description does not explain either parameter. household_id and include_inactive are completely undocumented; the text does not even hint that household_id scopes the goals or that include_inactive controls whether inactive goals appear. The description provides zero value beyond the raw schema.

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 identifies the resource ('financial goals') and the content orientation ('target vs current funding, progress, gap and status'), which is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling list_* tools such as list_accounts or list_households. It stops short of 5 because it does not explicitly say it returns a list of goals or state the intended scope (e.g., all goals for a household).

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor when not to use it. With 34 sibling tools including similar list_* calls, an agent has no explicit context to decide when list_goals is the right choice or when to set include_inactive.

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