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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that it returns progress against goals and defaults to active items, but it doesn't disclose pagination, return shape, or multi-company scoping behavior. With annotations carrying the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed immediately by usage guidance.

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 exists, but the description states that goals and their progress are returned, which gives enough sense of the response. With fully documented optional parameters and rich read-only annotations, the definition is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly; only minor detail about status filtering and multi-company behavior is absent.

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 100%, so all three parameters (status, company, goal_type) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the word 'active,' which is already covered by the status parameter. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (Get) and resource (business/financial goals) with a scope (active) and mentions progress. It is clearly distinct from all sibling tools, none of which deal with goals. Minor imprecision: the tool can also return completed/all goals via the status parameter, so 'active' undersells its capability.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it: when the user asks about goals, targets, or tracking against objectives. No alternatives exist among siblings, so no exclusion guidance is needed, but it doesn't clarify when to adjust the status filter to completed/all.

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