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

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, non-destructive, non-open-world operation. The description adds scope context about status filtering and where activity goals live, but it does not add much beyond that; output behavior is covered by the output schema.

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 two compact sentences with no wasted language. The primary resource is stated first, followed by useful routing information.

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 annotations and an output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers the resource, the status filter, and the key sibling relationship, though it could slightly improve parameter guidance around the default.

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 parameter meaning. It lists the accepted status values and implies that 'all' covers all statuses, but it does not explain the default behavior or distinguish the statuses beyond their names.

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 identifies the resource as the user's goals and clarifies the status scope, though it does not explicitly use a retrieval verb. It usefully distinguishes this tool from activity-related goal data found in get_coaching_context.activities and get_activities.

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?

It provides clear routing guidance by stating that goals on the user's own activities belong in get_coaching_context.activities and get_activities. It does not explicitly discuss when to use status 'all' versus specific statuses, but the main alternative path is clear.

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