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

Annotations already mark it readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds the behavioral detail of what aggregation and scoping occur. It clearly enumerates the computed statistics, which is useful context beyond the annotation. No contradictions found.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the operation and metrics, with no filler or repetition of schema details. Every clause earns its place.

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 read-only aggregation tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description fully specifies behavior, inputs, and use case. An agent can select and invoke it without additional information.

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?

Although the schema describes projectId only as 'UUID проекта', the description adds semantic meaning by explaining that it optionally scopes the aggregate to a project. This makes the optional filtering behavior explicit despite the sparse schema text.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Aggregate statistics across all goals' and enumerates the exact metrics returned (total count, status breakdown, root count, blocked count, overdue count). This clearly differentiates it from sibling list/detail/mutation tools such as goal-list, goal-get, and goal-tree.

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 explicitly states when the tool is appropriate ('Useful for daily standups and dashboard views') and indicates the scoping condition via projectId. It does not name excluded alternatives, but the intended use case is clear enough for an agent to select it over CRUD siblings.

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