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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the description's main added behavioral detail is the OAuth token requirement. It does not disclose anything about pagination, goal status, or response behavior beyond what annotations and the output schema provide.

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 very short and front-loads the resource name, but it is under-specified rather than crisply structured. Both sentences are lean, though the first does little work beyond the title.

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 read-only goals tool with a required user_id, optional pagination, and an output schema, the description is too thin. It covers the auth requirement but omits what goals are returned, how pagination works, and when this resource should be preferred over sibling WakaTime tools.

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 only 33%, and the description mentions only _apiKey, largely duplicating the schema's own _apiKey description. It says nothing about user_id or page, so it does not compensate for the undocumented parameters.

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 says only "User's goals," which essentially restates the tool name/title rather than stating a specific action or scope. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like projects, summaries, or user, leaving the agent to infer what a WakaTime goal is and what operation is performed.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison to alternatives such as current_user, summaries, or projects. The token requirement is a prerequisite, not usage guidance.

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