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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: the full shape of the returned payload (goal, clarifications, action_plans) and the failure mode ('or an error dict').

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?

Short, front-loaded with the core purpose, then Args and Returns. Every line earns its place; no filler or repetition of the title.

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 and 0% parameter coverage, the description supplies both the return structure and the argument's provenance, which is what an agent needs. Only minor gaps remain (no pagination/error detail, a typo in 'zoninga').

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 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does: it explains the argument is the plan id and where to find it (a linked zoninga goal's vng_goal_id field). That is meaning well beyond the bare 'integer' in the schema, though it doesn't state format constraints.

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 (Fetch) and resource (one Visions & Goals plan) plus its contents: SMART clarifications and action plans with steps. It implicitly contrasts 'one ... plan in full' with the sibling list_goal_plans, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

No statement of when to use this versus list_goal_plans, get_goal_projection, or update_goal. The 'one plan in full' phrasing hints at a read-one use case but no explicit context or exclusions are given.

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