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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds domain context about what a strategic goal is relative to objectives, but does not disclose filtering behavior, pagination, default status, or auth requirements.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no filler. Every word earns its place.

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 simple list tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but leaves a notable gap: the only parameter (status) is unexplained in both schema and description. It also does not mention ordering, pagination, or default filtering 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%, and the single optional status enum parameter is not mentioned at all in the description. The enum values in the schema give raw options, but the description adds no meaning about what status filtering does or how it interacts with the returned goals.

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 states a clear verb+resource ('List the multi-quarter strategic goals') and adds hierarchy context ('that objectives roll up into'), which helps distinguish the entity from objectives. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings like get_strategic_goal, list_objectives, or create_strategic_goal.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. An agent must infer that this is the bulk-listing tool versus the singular get_strategic_goal or the objective-listing sibling.

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