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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive write. The description adds two meaningful pieces beyond that: the company-admin permission requirement and the direct-vs-reviewed semantics. It does not mention duplicate-creation risk from non-idempotency, which is a minor remaining gap.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the permission prerequisite, then the alternative-path guidance. 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?

Covers the action, permission requirement, and alternative path, which is enough to invoke the tool, but with 0% schema description coverage and no output schema the description leaves the meaning and effects of status/priority/targetDate entirely unstated. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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% across 5 parameters, so the schema provides only names, types, and constraints with no meaning. The description adds nothing about title, status, priority, targetDate, or description semantics, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap beyond the required 'title'.

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?

States a specific verb ('create') and resource ('strategic goal'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the propose_strategic_goal sibling by contrasting direct creation with a review path. An agent can tell this apart from other create_* tools (create_objective, create_key_result) by the goal resource.

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?

Gives an explicit condition for choosing the alternative path: 'Use propose_strategic_goal instead if the goal should be reviewed first.' This is clear when-to-use/when-not guidance tied to a named sibling, leaving little to inference.

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