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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals this is a safe read operation. The description adds the return behavior of a nested tree with node fields, but does not disclose any limitations, permissions, or other behavioral aspects. It is consistent with the annotation but provides only modest extra context.

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 concise sentences, immediately front-loading the action and scope. It avoids filler and provides the essential field list in a compact structure.

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?

Given the simple read-only nature with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the operation and expected response shape by including the node fields and nested children array. It is complete for a tool of this complexity.

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?

The input schema already documents both parameters (projectId and rootId) with Russian descriptions, and the description repeats the same semantics in English, adding clarity for non-Russian users but no new technical information. The 'optional' nature is also conveyed in the schema. Thus it meets the baseline without significantly augmenting schema coverage.

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 'Fetch' as a specific verb and clearly identifies the resource as 'the full goal hierarchy as a nested tree'. This differentiates it from sibling tools like goal-get and goal-list, which likely return flat or individual data, and the mention of 'nested tree' makes the scope explicit.

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 explains the tool's primary use case (fetching the full hierarchy) and describes the optional filters for scoping by project or subtree, which clarifies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with alternative tools such as goal-list or goal-get, so no explicit when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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