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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful semantic clarification of what goals are but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as ordering, pagination, or filtering behavior beyond the schema's parameter description.

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, compact sentence that conveys the action, scope, and domain meaning without any redundant or filler content. The parenthetical earns its place by clarifying what a 'goal' is in this context.

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 operation with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description plus schema fully cover what an agent needs to know. The account scope and client filter are both represented, and the read-only annotations remove any uncertainty about side effects.

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%, so the client_id parameter is already fully documented with 'Only goals bound to this client (from list_clients)'. The description itself adds no extra parameter guidance, but the high schema coverage justifies the baseline score of 3.

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 clear verb ('List'), a specific resource ('goals'), and the account scope. The parenthetical 'targets tracked against a metric query' adds precise domain meaning, making it easy to distinguish from other list_* tools such as list_clients or list_calculated_metrics.

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 usage context is implicit: the description says 'for the account' and the schema's client_id parameter says 'Only goals bound to this client (from list_clients)'. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to use list_goals versus related goal tools like create_goal, update_goal, or duplicate_goal, nor any mention of omitting client_id to list all account goals.

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