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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so safety needs no restating. The description adds genuine behavioral context the annotations lack: cancelled goals are filtered out and results are ordered by priority, which affects how an agent should interpret an empty or ranked list.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the resource and scope, then lists returned fields. No filler or redundancy.

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 enumerating returned fields is not strictly needed, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, with zero schema coverage on a required client_id and an optional firm_id, the description leaves an agent without enough information to construct a correct call in multi-firm contexts.

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% for both parameters. The description only implies a client identifier through the possessive 'client's' and says nothing about client_id's format or what the optional firm_id with a default of '' does — it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('client's financial goals'), enumerates the goal categories covered, and states the exclusion of cancelled goals plus the fields returned. It is clearly distinguishable from the create/update goal siblings by being the read path.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb: an agent can infer this is the retrieval call when it needs a client's goals. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over get_client_dossier or other read siblings, and no prerequisites are given, though the 'cancelled goals excluded' note conveys scope.

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