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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds the useful workflow detail that these are pending suggestions awaiting a choice via choose_goal, but says nothing about return shape or whether the list can be empty.

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?

A single compact sentence with no filler, front-loading what the tool returns and appending the relevant next step. Every clause 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?

For a parameterless, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description supplies enough to call it correctly and act on the result. The only gap is what the returned goals look like (identifiers vs. labels), which an agent would need in order to pass one to choose_goal.

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 the baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond the schema's own completeness.

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 names the resource (goals suggested by the Tavern) and its purpose (for the person to pick from), which is specific enough to distinguish it from choose_goal, which it explicitly references. The verb is implied rather than stated (it reads as a noun phrase), so it falls just short of a clean verb+resource formulation.

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?

'for the person to pick from' establishes the selection context and 'choose_goal starts the picked one' routes the agent to the correct follow-up tool. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance, but the two-step workflow (view suggestions -> choose_goal) is clear.

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