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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so "Read-only" in the description is redundant and earns no credit. The description does add behavior beyond the annotations: results are scoped to the caller's active workspace and sorted newest first, which an agent cannot derive from structured fields. It says nothing about pagination behavior or result size beyond the implied newest-first ordering.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying distinct information, with scope and ordering front-loaded before the optional filter. No filler or restatement of the tool title.

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 list with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers scope, sort order, and the status filter. It leaves the limit parameter and any paging/return-size expectations unaddressed, which is the main remaining gap for correct invocation.

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, and it only partly does. It names the status filter and its allowed values (which the enum already provides) but says nothing about the limit parameter — no default, no maximum of 100, no behavior when omitted.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("List the caller's personal goals") plus scope ("from their active workspace") and ordering ("newest first"), which is far more than the title alone. It stops short of differentiating from look-alike siblings such as goals_list, so it is clear but not disambiguating.

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?

"List the caller's personal goals from their active workspace" implies the retrieval context and the optional status filter hints at a common use case. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g., a get-by-id tool) for someone wanting a single goal.

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