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

Annotations already declare write, non-idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond that: the goal is created with status ON_TRACK, a server-side default the agent could not otherwise predict. It omits any duplicate-handling or validation-failure behavior, keeping it below a 5.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and initial state, then the constraint details. Every clause carries information; the enumeration of enum values is compact rather than padded. Slightly telegraphic but not wasteful.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the mutation profile. But for a 9-parameter creation tool with zero schema description coverage, the description leaves major inputs (target_amount, target_currency, firm_id) unexplained and says nothing about the required client_id or validation behavior — an agent could call this and omit the amount entirely.

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%, so the description carries the burden and does partially compensate: it enumerates all eight goal_type values, gives the target_date format (YYYY-MM-DD), and explains priority ordering (1 is highest). However, six of nine parameters — client_id, firm_id, goal_name, description, target_amount, target_currency (default CHF) — get no mention at all, and target_amount is a critical field for a financial goal.

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 ('Add a financial goal for a client') plus a distinguishing behavioral detail (starts ON_TRACK), which separates it from update_client_goal and get_client_goals by implication. It never names the sibling tools explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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 word 'Add' implies a creation context, so usage is inferable, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus update_client_goal, or what preconditions exist (e.g. whether the client must already exist). Guidance is implied rather than stated.

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