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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-schema detail (the allowed status values and YYYY-MM-DD date format), but it never states whether unspecified fields are left unchanged (partial update) or cleared, nor any permission requirements for a mutation tool.

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 sentences with zero filler, and the field list is front-loaded before the status enumeration. The second sentence is a telegraphic fragment, but it is dense with necessary enum detail rather than padding.

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 safety profile. For a 7-parameter mutation tool with no schema descriptions, though, the definition leaves firm_id unexplained and the partial-vs-full update contract unstated, which an agent needs before calling it safely.

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 carry the burden; it names five of the seven parameters and supplies the two highest-risk details missing from the schema: the full status enum and the target_date format. Gaps remain: firm_id is never mentioned and goal_id's role/format is left implicit.

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 (update) and resource (client goal) plus the exact fields that can be changed, so the agent knows precisely what operation it performs. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling create_client_goal or get_client_goals, but the 'update ... goal_id' framing makes the distinction inferable.

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: the presence of a required goal_id signals that an existing goal must already exist and that create_client_goal is for new goals. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite/permission statement.

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