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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by explaining the returned goal fields and the status lifecycle, including post-period statuses (done, partial, failed). It does not describe pagination behavior for the limit parameter, and 'Read-only' largely repeats the annotation.

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 resource and returned fields, then moves to filtering options. It is appropriately sized for the tool, though the standalone 'Read-only' sentence duplicates the annotation and adds little.

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 listing tool with four optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides useful return-field detail and filter semantics. Completeness is slightly reduced because it never explains the limit parameter or pagination behavior.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It successfully explains status values, period choices (current, past, future), and the ERP project id filter, but it completely omits the limit parameter, leaving one of four parameters undocumented.

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 a specific resource: the company's period goals, including the fields returned (period, responsible person, progress, status). It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings such as list_goals or goals_get, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 filtering options imply that this tool is used to retrieve goals by status, period, or ERP project, which gives useful context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance relative to alternatives like list_goals or goals_get, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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