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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, covering the entire safety profile of this lookup. The description adds no behavior beyond that - no note on auth, caching, or what happens on an unrecognized goal - so there is essentially nothing beyond the structured fields.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the routing hint second. Every clause 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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the rich annotations cover the safety profile for a simple one-enum lookup. The only residual gap is that nothing explains which URL each goal resolves to, though the closed enum makes that largely inferable.

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%, but the single parameter is a closed enum whose six values (hire, pricing, how_it_works, agent_api, apply_to_work, existing_client) are largely self-explanatory. The description only says 'known goal' and adds no meaning about how each value maps to a destination, so it neither compensates for nor harms the coverage gap.

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 specific verb and return artifact ('Return the canonical URL') plus the scoping constraint ('for a known goal'), and explicitly names the sibling it must not be confused with (match_intent). An agent can distinguish this from match_intent, get_pricing, and understand_site without opening any schema.

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 gives an explicit routing rule with both halves: use this tool when the goal is already known, and use match_intent when the goal is unclear. That is a when-to-use plus a named alternative, leaving nothing to inference.

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