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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses important behavioral details: no offset pagination, default limit of 50, deterministic sorting by priority then createdAt, and the fact that parentId filters to direct children only. These details help an agent predict what the tool returns and how it behaves before calling it.

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 compact and well-structured: it states the operation, lists filters, then provides result behavior and output fields. Each sentence adds useful information without redundancy.

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 read-only filtered list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential contract: available filters, result limit behavior, sorting order, and the exact fields returned. No critical information for invoking the tool correctly is missing.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds value by clarifying 'direct children only' for parentId, the default limit, and the absence of offset pagination, which are not explicit in the schema.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' with a clear resource 'goals' and enumerates the available filters. It differentiates itself from siblings like goal-get or goal-tree by framing this as a filtered listing operation with a bounded result set.

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?

The description clearly conveys that this tool is for listing goals with optional filters and result limits, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over related tools like goal-get or goal-tree. The usage context is implied rather than directly contrasted with alternatives.

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