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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral trait – that non-Plus accounts have a capped number of goals and that the refusal message states the limit – but it is vague (no number, no mention of what happens to tags or of return value).

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 with no filler, and the quota caveat is placed immediately after the purpose. It is efficient, though the terseness is partly under-specification rather than disciplined brevity.

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?

This is a 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, so the description should carry more weight: it says nothing about what is returned (e.g. the new goal's id for later dandori_update_goal calls), about duplicate handling given idempotentHint=false, or about tag auto-creation beyond what the schema line implies.

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 86%, so the schema already documents almost every parameter (title, tags, period, dates, space_id). The description adds no parameter-level meaning, format hints, or defaults beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 first sentence, "Créer un objectif", is a verbatim restatement of the tool title "Créer un objectif" and adds nothing beyond the name. The only extra content is a subscription quota note, not a clarification of what the tool does or how it differs from siblings such as dandori_create_task or dandori_create_project.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives (e.g. dandori_update_goal for modification, or the other create_* tools). The mention of a Plus-tier limit is a constraint on invocation, not guidance about when this tool is the right choice.

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