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

With zero annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read operation and notes it returns progress, but says nothing about permissions, whether firm_id is required for scoping, result limits, or the shape of the goals returned. 'With progress' is the only behavioral detail offered.

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 front-loaded sentence with the resource and examples up front and no wasted words. It is close to optimal in size, though the examples slightly crowd out more useful scoping detail.

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 structure need not be explained. However, for a two-parameter read tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description is thin: it omits firm_id entirely and gives no usage context, leaving gaps the structured fields do not fill.

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 must compensate for both parameters. It only implies client_id via 'for a client' and never mentions firm_id, its default-empty behavior, or which parameters scope the lookup. The schema titles ('Firm Id', 'Client Id') are all the agent has to work with.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Get financial goals for a client', with concrete examples (retirement, education, property) that pin down what a 'goal' is. It contrasts implicitly with the mutation siblings create_client_goal and update_client_goal, but never names them or any read sibling, so differentiation is left to inference.

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 explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no mention of the alternative siblings (create_client_goal, update_client_goal, get_client_dossier). Usage is only implied by the verb 'Get' and the client scoping, leaving the agent to guess when this is preferable to a fuller dossier fetch.

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