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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this as a safe read. The description adds the enterprise-plan prerequisite and identifies the underlying endpoint (GET /api/v1/sites/goals), which is modest extra context. It does not disclose whether results are paginated, whether goals can be archived/filtered, or what the response shape looks like.

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 that front-load the action and resource, then the constraint, then the endpoint. Efficient overall, though the raw endpoint reference is marginally redundant filler for an agent.

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 read-only, single-parameter list tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose, access prerequisite, and endpoint — enough to call it correctly. Return-value expectations and any pagination behavior remain unspecified.

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 single parameter site_id is fully documented in the schema (domain format plus example), so the description correctly need not restate it. Baseline 3 applies since the description adds no parameter-level 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 and resource ('List the goals (conversions) configured for a site') with a helpful gloss that conversions and goals are the same concept. It is clear on its own, though it never names or contrasts with any sibling tool.

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?

'Requires an enterprise plan' is a genuine gating condition that tells the agent when this call will fail, which is more than most descriptions offer. However, there is no guidance on when to reach for this tool versus the stats-oriented siblings, and no notion of what to do instead if the plan requirement is unmet.

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