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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing what the payload contains, which matters because there is no output schema. It stops short of describing progress/lever semantics or a return shape for empty state.

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 a single dense sentence that front-loads the resource and then lists the returned fields, with the ordering advice appended. Every element earns its place, though the comma run-on list is slightly harder to scan than a structured breakdown would be.

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 carries the burden of telling the agent what it receives, and it does so by enumerating nine returned fields. It is nearly complete for a trivial zero-param reader, missing only interpretation of items like lever categories (hard/comfortable) and how progress is expressed.

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 schema itself fully covers the input surface and the description has no parameter burden to carry. The baseline for a 0-param tool is 4, and nothing in the text conflicts with the empty schema.

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 a specific resource (the singular yearly goal) and enumerates the exact fields it surfaces (kind, metric, starting value, current value, target, deadline, progress, levers, other projects), so an agent knows precisely what comes back. It falls short of 5 only because it does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling set_goal or check_goal_draft, though 'the one yearly goal' implies uniqueness well enough to distinguish it.

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 single instruction 'Call first in most flows' gives ordering guidance, which is useful context about when to invoke it. However, 'most flows' is vague and no exclusions or named alternatives (e.g. get_planning_context or get_plan) are offered, so usage is implied rather than fully specified.

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