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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower; the description still adds useful context by disclosing the default scoping and the payload contents (colors and sections). It does not describe ordering or whether empty sections are returned.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the default behavior front-loaded and the override option second. Every clause carries information.

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 single-parameter read-only lister with no output schema, the description adequately covers return contents and default scope. Minor gaps remain around ordering/pagination and the distinction from sibling list tools, but nothing blocking.

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 enum labels are already self-documenting, so the baseline is 3. The description's "Planning spheres (used by tasks)" adds a small hint about who consumes those spheres, but otherwise mirrors the schema text.

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 user's spheres (life areas) with their colors and sections" gives a clear resource plus what the payload contains, which separates it from list_goals/list_focus in the sibling set. It never names those siblings, so the differentiation is by implication rather than explicit routing.

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 the default scope (planning, used by tasks) and tells the agent how to reach the other buckets ("pass section for Goals, Focus, Visualisations or all"), which is clear context for choosing a call. It stops short of saying when this is preferable to list_goals or list_focus.

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