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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail about what is returned: all key result types, plan/fact/progress values, rows, and recent check-ins, though it does not cover pagination or limits on the returned check-ins.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then enumerates the included data compactly. It has no unnecessary preamble, and even the brief "Read-only" tag is minimally redundant against the annotations rather than distracting.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the key result types and associated fields that the tool returns. It is complete enough for a single-parameter get tool, though it does not describe the exact response structure or how many recent check-ins are included.

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 the goal_id parameter is already fully documented in the schema, including its source from goals_list. The description does not add meaning about the parameter beyond that baseline; it mainly describes output content and downstream use with goals_checkin.

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 states a specific retrieval: one period goal in full, with every key result type and its associated plan, fact, progress, rows, and recent check-ins. It distinguishes itself from goals_list by referring to a single goal id sourced from goals_list.

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 downstream guidance to use item and row ids with goals_checkin, which clarifies how the returned data is consumed. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus goals_list or other siblings, so the usage guidance is implied rather than spelled out.

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