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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read, non-idempotent, non-destructive create, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that goals surface on the Goals page and that they are personal or organization-wide, but says nothing about validation failures, duplicate-name behavior, or what happens when the target is omitted for a measured goal.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the action before the enumeration of measurement modes; no filler. It is dense but every clause carries information, though the colon-list structure makes the measure modes slightly run together.

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 10-parameter creation tool with only 40% schema description coverage and four enums, the description leaves too much unaddressed — notably the semantics of `type`, the target/direction relationship, and period handling. The presence of an output schema removes the need to explain return values, but the input side remains under-described.

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 coverage is only 40% across 10 parameters, so the description should carry more weight than it does. It usefully explains scope (personal vs organization) and the measure sources, but leaves `type` (kpi/okr/sprint/habit), `direction`, `recurrence`, `target`, and how `start`/`end` bind to the measurement period entirely undocumented outside 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a goal on the Goals page') and enumerates the three measurement modes, which lets an agent tell the measure variants apart. It stops short of naming any sibling tool, but no other goal-oriented sibling exists, so the risk of confusion is low.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no prerequisites stated — an agent is not told that a sheet-based goal requires a sheetId obtained elsewhere or that organization scope may need elevated access. The measurement list implies choices but never frames them as decision criteria.

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