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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower, yet the description adds genuine value beyond them: it explains that a null `progress` means unmeasurable (missing data source) rather than 0%, warns against misreporting it, and points to the `unmeasurable` list for remediation. It doesn't cover pagination or result-size behavior beyond the schema's `detail` param.

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?

Opens with the core purpose, then front-loads the highest-risk interpretation caveat. The capitalised 'READ `progress` CAREFULLY' is emphatic but earns its place given the misuse it prevents; the only mild redundancy is restating the null-means-unmeasurable point twice.

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 no output schema, the description must convey return semantics, and it does cover the key ones: progress values including null, fix-queue roll-up counts, and the `unmeasurable` list. For a 2-param read tool this is close to sufficient, though other fields in the goal tree are left unenumerated.

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 `site_id` and `detail` are already fully documented there; the description adds no parameter syntax or format detail. Its references to `progress` and `unmeasurable` describe output fields, not inputs. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: the brand's goal tree with progress and fix-queue issue roll-ups. An agent can tell it returns goals rather than metrics or content. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings like goal_metrics, content_for_goal, or refresh_goals.

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?

Usage is only implied ('The brand's goal tree...'), with no explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternative among the many goal-related siblings. It does supply interpretation guidance once called, but nothing that routes the agent between goal tools.

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