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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description only needs to add context. It adds horizon scoping and the app-view equivalence, but it does not disclose defaults for the optional parameters, how status interacts with horizon, or the response shape. There is no contradiction with the 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?

One concise, front-loaded sentence that names the resource and scope before adding the app-view clarification. Every phrase earns its place, with no repetition or fluff.

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 simple read-only list tool with two optional enum parameters, the description plus schema is mostly usable. However, with no output schema and zero schema description coverage, the missing status semantics and lack of default-filter behavior leave meaningful ambiguity for an agent deciding how to invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the horizon enum by listing week/month/year/decade, but it leaves status (active/completed/all) entirely unexplained, including its meaning and relationship to horizon. This is only partial compensation for the missing schema descriptions.

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 clearly identifies the resource (goals) and scope (horizon: week/month/year/decade), and ties the tool to the app's Goals view, distinguishing it from task/calendar/journal tools. It lacks an explicit verb, but the title 'View Goals' and read-only annotations make the operation clear. It does not explicitly call out sibling goal tools, but the resource and view framing are sufficient.

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 phrase 'exactly what the app's Goals view shows' provides clear context for when this read-only retrieval tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly state when to avoid it or name alternatives like create_goal/update_goal, but the read-only nature and sibling set make the intended usage reasonably apparent.

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