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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it returns a structured payload, and notably returns an error with a hint when the accounts aren't linked yet — an edge case not captured by 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?

Purpose and scoping are front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the disambiguation and the return shape. The Returns block is verbose but useful given there is no output schema; the definition is slightly padded but each part 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 no output schema, the description compensates by sketching the return object (fields, count, action_plan sub-object) and flagging the unlinked-accounts error case. Combined with the annotations covering the safety profile, an agent has enough to call and interpret it 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the baseline a 4 is appropriate. There are no inputs to explain, and the description correctly focuses on output shape instead.

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 (List) and resource (goal PLANS), and goes further by scoping them to the Visions & Goals sister site. It explicitly distinguishes these qualitative plans from the money-tracking goals, which an agent needs to tell list_goal_plans apart from list_goals and get_goal_plan.

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 gives clear situational context: these are qualitative planning artifacts (SMART criteria, action steps) tied to Visions & Goals, not the financial goal objects handled by list_goals. It mentions the vng_goal_id linkage, which signals relationships to goal tools. However, it stops short of explicitly stating when to prefer this over list_goals/list_shared_goals.

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