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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation, lowering the burden on the description. The description adds the status filtering behavior, but does not disclose details like default status handling, ordering, pagination, or what happens when no goals match.

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 description is a single compact sentence that front-loads the resource and encodes the valid statuses. Every part earns its place, and there is no redundant phrasing.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with an output schema and readOnly annotation, the description is nearly sufficient. It lacks explicit mention that 'active' is the default and does not compare against sibling goal tools, but these are minor gaps given the structured schema and annotations.

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 should compensate, but it largely repeats the enum values already present in the input schema. It does not explain the meaning of each status or the nuance of 'all' beyond what the enum labels already convey.

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?

The description states the resource ('the user's goals') and the status filter, making it clear this is a retrieval tool for goals. It is clear but relies on the tool name for the verb, and it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling upsert_goal.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as upsert_goal or get_coaching_context. The status enum implies filtering use cases, but there is no explicit context, prerequisite, or exclusion information.

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