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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description still earns credit by disclosing two things annotations cannot: the sort order (active goal first) and the payload shape (raised amount vs target). It omits pagination/limit behavior for large goal sets, keeping it out of 5 territory.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the ordering and the per-item metric. Every clause carries information an agent needs; nothing is wasted.

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 the description is not obligated to detail return values, and it still summarizes them briefly. For a zero-argument, read-only list scoped to the caller's page, nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is no parameter semantics to describe or omit. The description correctly adds nothing here rather than padding.

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?

Specific verb (list) plus resource (goals) plus scope ('every goal on the page'), which implicitly separates it from the singular get_goal sibling. It also states ordering (active first) and the metric returned. It never names a sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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 word 'every' signals this is the enumerate-all path versus get_goal for a single goal, and set_active_goal for reordering. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no mention of prerequisites such as having at least one goal configured.

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