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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds context annotations cannot express: a per-call cost ($0.01), an API key requirement, and implicit default semantics for status. It stops short of noting pagination or result ordering, which would be the remaining behavioral gap.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then the filter semantics, then the negative scoping and cost/auth tail. Dense and nearly waste-free; the telegraphic phrasing ('goal_id selects one') borders on clipped but does not obscure.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers cost, auth, and default filtering. The only substantive omission is the 'limit' parameter's behavior and the distinction among the non-active status values.

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 carries the burden. It explains goal_id's selection behavior and status's default/aggregate meaning ('all includes completed goals'), which is genuinely additive, but 'limit' is never mentioned and the enum values in_progress/paused/abandoned are left unexplained.

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 and resource ('Read your owned life goals and progress') and names the scope (owned, not shared). It also explicitly disambiguates from adjacent concepts ('Not calendar events or streak trackers'), so an agent can separate it from get_trackers and get_events without inspecting schemas.

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?

'goal_id selects one' and 'status defaults active, all includes completed goals' give real operational guidance on how to shape a call. However, there is no guidance on when to use this versus update_goal/create_goal or the other list tools, and no exclusions beyond the two named non-goal domains.

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