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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: every created goal is SOFT, only the founder makes a goal HARD, changes to a HARD goal revert it to SOFT, headline conversions count HARD goals once any exist, and a payment goal is auto-proposed during list. It stops short of covering auth/permission requirements and failure behavior, so not a 5.

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?

The list/create purpose is front-loaded, but the body is one long run-on sentence with deeply nested parentheticals that is hard to parse. Each clause carries information, but the structure obscures it rather than organizing it.

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?

No output schema and no annotations for a 7-parameter tool, and several parameters (name, valueCents, action, siteId) and the return shape are unexplained. The core goal-creation semantics are well covered, but an agent still lacks guidance on non-type parameters.

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% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains the `type` enum values richly and clarifies `note` and partially `match`, but leaves `name`, `valueCents`, `action`, and `siteId` undocumented, so compensation is only partial.

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 clear verb+resource: list the site's goals and funnels, or create a goal, followed by a detailed enumeration of the six goal types. It does not reference any sibling tool by name, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 implied through the action enum ('list', 'create') and the type semantics, and it says to use `note` to say why. There is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-another-tool guidance and no stated prerequisites or exclusions for list vs create.

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