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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only.' It adds the underlying GraphQL query signature (query goals(user_id, offset, per_page)), which provides implementation context beyond the structured metadata. No contradiction with annotations.

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 consists of two short, direct clauses: 'List goals, optionally scoped to a patient. Read-only. GraphQL: query goals(user_id, offset, per_page).' No filler or redundancy; front-loaded with the action and resource.

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 optional-param list tool, the description plus schema and annotations are sufficient. No output schema exists, but the return behavior is evident from a list operation. The GraphQL hint adds useful context without over-explaining.

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%, so each parameter is already documented. The description adds minimal extra value by mapping 'scoped to a patient' to user_id and showing the parameter order in the GraphQL signature, but it does not introduce new meaning beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('goals'), and adds 'optionally scoped to a patient' to clarify scope. This clearly differentiates it from sibling list tools for other resources like appointments or patients.

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 clear context by stating it lists goals and can be filtered by patient. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the resource name makes the intended usage obvious compared to sibling tools.

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