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

The description adds significant behavioral detail beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint). It explains the 90-day summing, the clamping of the divisor to 1-3 months, and the meaning of pace_window_months. This goes beyond the safety profile already declared by annotations. No contradiction exists.

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 well-structured with a clear opening statement, detailed calculation notes, and separate Args/Returns sections. It front-loads the core purpose and includes useful details like the clamping rule. It is slightly verbose but each sentence contributes value, so it earns a 4.

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 read-only analytic tool with a single integer parameter, the description is complete. It explains the calculation, the meaning of pace_window_months, and lists all return values (progress, average contribution, etc.), even though there is no output schema. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret results.

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?

The only parameter, goal_id, is described as 'The goal's ID' – which restates the name and offers no additional meaning beyond the schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate, but it does not explain how to obtain the ID or its format. This is minimal but at least acknowledges the parameter.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Project when a financial goal will be reached at the current pace.' It uses a specific verb (project) and resource (financial goal), and the title 'Analytics: Get goal projection' reinforces this. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_goal_plan (which likely provides a plan) by focusing on projection and pace calculation.

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 description provides clear context for when to use the tool (when you need a projection based on current pace) and explains the calculation logic. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the purpose is unambiguous. Since it gives clear context without exclusions, it earns a 4.

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