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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world safety, so the description only needs added context — and it supplies ordering (by goal priority), empty-list semantics, the absence of a step limit, and the fact that step_schema is returned for the submitted plan. No permissions or rate-limit detail, but the safety profile is already covered by 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 filter criterion is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by ordering, then return contents. The field enumeration is a touch long but earns its place because no output schema exists to document the return shape.

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?

With no output schema, the description must describe the return shape, and it does: item fields, ordering, and the empty-list case. For a zero-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. It correctly implies a no-argument call.

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 (list) and resource (planning requests) plus the exact filter: active goals with no live plan, whether never submitted or finished. An agent can distinguish this from list_goals or get_pending_work without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to the successor tool ("a plan can be written for them and submitted with submit_goal_plan") and describes the trigger condition (no live plan). It does not name an alternative list tool to avoid, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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