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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally; the description adds the default filter behavior ('active goals only unless includeClosed is true') and enumerates the returned fields, which matters because there is no output schema. It omits ordering, pagination, and result-size limits, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and the save_goal ordering rule, then return shape, then filtering default — a sensible order. The embedded clause about Notes ranking and Schedule Focus is somewhat ornate but does carry genuine product context, so it earns its place; the sentence is still dense enough that a shorter phrasing would read better.

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 zero-required-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, sequencing, default filtering, and returned fields, which is close to complete. Ordering and whether results are truncated are not addressed, so an agent cannot fully predict the response shape.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds the default state of includeClosed ('active goals only' when absent), which the schema's 'Also return done or archived goals' does not spell out. The person/project/companyId scoping parameters are left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable but adds no extra credit.

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 and resource ('List the member's goals') and immediately explains what a goal is in this product ('what they are working toward, which Notes ranks every note and to-do against and a Schedule Focus block points at'). It is unmistakably distinct from sibling list tools such as connections_todo_list or connections_notes_search.

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?

Gives an explicit sequencing rule: 'Call this before save_goal so you update rather than duplicate.' That is real when-to-use guidance tied to a named sibling. It stops short of stating when not to use it (e.g. versus notes_search) or any prerequisites, so it does not reach a 5.

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