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

Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds nothing beyond that—it does not disclose pagination, default behavior, or any other operational detail. While there is no contradiction, the description fails to add value beyond the annotations, leaving the agent with no additional transparency.

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 short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. A single noun phrase without a verb or any explanatory context does not earn its place; it fails to provide needed information in a structured way. It is not 'waste-free' but simply inadequate.

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?

Given that this is a read-only data retrieval tool with two parameters and an output schema, the description should at least indicate that it retrieves goals for a user. Instead, it only states 'User's goals' without context on the operation, pagination, or what the results represent. The tool is significantly incomplete for an agent trying to understand its behavior.

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 by explaining parameter usage. It does not. It only says 'User's goals', which does not clarify the meaning of 'user_id' or the 'page' parameter. No parameter semantics are conveyed beyond what is already evident from the property names, and even those are left entirely implicit.

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 'User's goals' is essentially a noun phrase that restates the tool name 'goals' with a possessive modifier. It does not specify any verb or action (e.g., retrieve, list, create), nor does it distinguish the tool from siblings like 'stats' or 'summaries'. This is a tautology rather than a clear purpose statement.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions. It is a single noun phrase with no operational context.

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