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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety behavior is covered by structured data. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral note: objectives you lack permission to view are silently omitted, which is not derivable from annotations. It does not, however, cover error behavior for a bad ID or return shape.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and the second sentence carries the access-control caveat. Nothing wasteful.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should convey return behavior; it hints at embedded objectives but not overall shape. The permission-based omission caveat is valuable, but for a one-param tool with no schema docs and no output schema, more detail on identifier format and returned structure would help.

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% for the single required 'strategicGoalId' parameter, yet the description never mentions the parameter, its expected identifier format, or where to obtain it. With one undocumented parameter the description should compensate but entirely omits parameter meaning.

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 (Get) and resource (strategic goal) and distinguishes it from the sibling list_strategic_goals by specifying retrieval of a single goal. An agent can immediately tell this is the single-item fetch, not the list.

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 implies you call it when you need one strategic goal with its aligned objectives, but it offers no explicit when/when-not guidance or named alternatives like list_strategic_goals or get_objective. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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