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

Annotations already declare the write/non-idempotent/non-destructive profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds real value: the created goal becomes the one shown on the page unless active=false, and the free plan runs only one goal at a time, both of which are behavioral effects not present in structured fields.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying distinct information, with the core action front-loaded and the side effect and limit following. No filler.

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 carry the safety profile. The description covers the key behavioral caveats; only the premium/precondition aspects of impact and deadline are left implicit.

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 coverage is 67%, so the schema already documents active, impact, and deadline. The description reinforces title/targetAmount and the meaning of active, but adds nothing for impact, deadline, or description, leaving partial gaps relative to the remaining coverage.

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 ('Create a goal') and names the two identifying fields (title, target amount). However, it never distinguishes itself from nearby siblings like update_goal or set_active_goal, so the agent must infer the difference.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative among the many goal-related siblings. The free-plan sentence is a constraint on the operation, not selection guidance.

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