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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral details: it returns 'Created goal details with progress' and notes that current_amount is ignored if linked_account is provided, which is additional context beyond 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?

The description is front-loaded with the purpose, then uses a structured Args/Returns format. Each line earns its place for the 10 parameters, though it is somewhat lengthy and repeats type information that could be inferred from the schema.

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?

Given 10 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the return value and all parameter semantics. It lacks details on error handling or explicit sibling differentiation, but for a create operation it provides enough to call the tool correctly.

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%, so the description must document all 10 parameters. It does so thoroughly: examples for name, minimum for target_amount, enum-like list for goal_type, date format for target_date, default and ignore condition for current_amount, hex format for color, and priority semantics. This fully compensates for the absent schema descriptions.

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+resource: 'Create a new financial goal.' This is clear and direct. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like create_goal_plan, list_goals, or update_goal, leaving minor ambiguity about when this exact tool is preferred.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites such as required permissions or account state. The description only says what it creates, not when it is appropriate to call it.

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