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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds contextual semantics: goals are account-scoped targets against a metric query, and client_id filters to a specific client. It doesn't contradict the annotations.

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?

One tight sentence with the core action and scope front-loaded and the clarifying definition in a parenthetical. No filler or redundancy.

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 an output schema available, return values don't need explanation in the description. The description covers purpose, scope, and the optional filter, and annotations cover read-only safety; nothing essential is missing for a simple list operation.

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%; the sole parameter client_id is already described in the schema with a pointer to list_clients. The tool description adds only the account-scoping context, not parameter-specific details, so the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 a specific verb ('List') with a resource ('goals') and scopes it to the account, then clarifies the domain meaning as 'targets tracked against a metric query.' This distinguishes it from goal-mutating siblings like create_goal, update_goal, and archive_goal.

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?

It states the account-level scope and notes the optional client_id restriction, including a hint that client values come from list_clients. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, so agents must infer the usage from the verb 'List' versus mutation siblings.

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