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

The description adds a definition of a goal (target value + comparison for a saved metric query), which gives some behavioral context beyond the tool name. Annotations already indicate it is not read-only or destructive, and the description confirms it is a creation operation. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., impact on reports), permission requirements, or whether the goal is immediately persisted. With minimal annotation coverage, the description carries the responsibility for these details but fails to provide them.

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 a single, tightly worded sentence with zero filler. It immediately states the action and defines the core concept, making it highly efficient and front-loaded. Every word 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?

The tool has 8 parameters, nested objects, and an output schema, yet the description is minimalist. While the schema is highly detailed and covers parameter semantics, the description lacks high-level usage context such as how the query relates to goal creation or what constitutes a valid setup. Since an output schema exists, not explaining return values is acceptable, but the description could still provide more context on prerequisites and relationship to saved queries.

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 100%, meaning every parameter already has a description. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so it meets the baseline expected for high schema coverage. No extra value is provided beyond what the schema already communicates.

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 the verb (create), the resource (goal), and defines a goal as a target value plus comparison for a saved metric query. This precisely distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_goal, duplicate_goal, or add_goal_widget, leaving no ambiguity about what operation is performed.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_goal_widget or update_goal. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a saved query), nor does it explain the context of goal creation. A single sentence with no usage context leaves the agent to infer when and why to invoke it.

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