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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses the plan/trial prerequisite, specific failure modes including exchange-rate issues and the 100% shared-account constraint, and the return shape. It could add more about duplicate-goal handling or side effects, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 front-loaded with the create action, followed by failure conditions, prerequisite, and return shape in four efficient sentences. Every sentence contributes useful information with no filler.

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 7-parameter creation tool with detailed schema coverage, the description supplies the remaining context an agent needs: feature availability, failure modes, account-sharing constraints, and return shape via the get_goals reference. No output schema exists, but the description adequately explains the result.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema itself thoroughly documents parameters including the nested accounts funding rules. The description reinforces the funding model at a high level but does not add parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a savings goal', then specifies the target amount, optional date, and account-funding model. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as get_goals, update_goal, and delete_goal.

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?

It states a key prerequisite, 'Needs the Goals feature on the plan or an active trial', and lists failure conditions that help determine whether the call is viable. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives such as update_goal for modifying a goal or get_goals for listing goals.

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