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 adds the action-dependent parameter requirements (get requires goalId), which is useful, but says nothing about return shape, pagination, or empty-result behavior.

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 dense sentence with the purpose front-loaded and the action variants enumerated in order of typical use. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.

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?

For a three-mode read tool with six undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description covers action selection adequately but leaves filter semantics and return content unexplained. An agent can call it, but must guess at what each filter returns.

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 load. It does map all six parameters to their respective actions (ownerId/matchId/status to list, goalId to get, membershipId to suggest_from_profile), but only names them as 'filters' without explaining what each selects or how the status enum values behave.

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 (Read) and resource (goals), and the action enum makes the three operating modes explicit. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from any sibling, though the _query suffix convention carries implicit contrast with the _manage tools.

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?

Gives per-action selection guidance: use "list" with optional filters, "get" when a goalId is available, and "suggest_from_profile" with an optional membershipId. It clearly routes among the three modes, but offers no when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives (e.g. what to do if the goal is unknown).

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