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

The description discloses key behavioral traits beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: pagination behavior (no offset, max limit), sort order (priority ASC, createdAt DESC), and the 'direct children only' restriction for parentId. It also lists the exact return fields, which is valuable given no 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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose ('List goals'), followed by precise filter and behavior details. Every word contributes meaning with no 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 list tool with no output schema, the description is highly complete. It covers filters, pagination, sorting, and return fields. It does not require additional context to invoke correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by consolidating parameter meanings in English (schema is partly Russian), clarifying 'direct children only' for parentId, and highlighting the default limit of 50. This goes slightly beyond the schema's raw field descriptions.

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 clearly states 'List goals with optional filters', specifying the exact operation and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like goal-get (single item) and goal-tree (hierarchy) by focusing on a flat list with filters.

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 gives clear context for use: listing goals with optional filters, limit, and sorting. It does not explicitly compare to alternatives (e.g., goal-get) but implies its role as a list endpoint. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned, so it stops short of a 5.

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