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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only that the response contains impact tiers and progress notes, which is light additional context, especially since an output schema exists.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the returned payload named immediately after. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety semantics; the description's job of stating purpose and payload scope is done. The only gap is the unexplained id parameter, which the schema leaves undocumented.

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% and the sole 'id' parameter is an untyped-in-prose integer with no explanation in either schema or description. The phrase 'one goal' weakly implies the id identifies the goal to fetch, but format or source of the id is never clarified.

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 ('Read one goal') plus the scope of what is returned ('in full, including its impact tiers and its progress notes'). It is distinguishable from list_goals and create_goal/update_goal by the singular, read-only framing, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 guidance and no routing against alternatives such as list_goals (for many goals) or get_analytics/get_dashboard_summary (for aggregated goal data). The single-goal scope is implied by 'one goal' but the agent must infer that a goal id is a prerequisite.

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