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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond them: the response is the *editable* definition and includes lock_version, which signals the optimistic-concurrency prerequisite for a subsequent change. It does not cover failure behavior (e.g. unknown goal_id) but that is minor for a simple read.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the tool's purpose and the key returned field front-loaded. The second sentence exists solely to disambiguate against a sibling, so every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape needn't be spelled out, and annotations cover the safety profile. For a two-parameter idempotent-disabled read with full schema coverage, the description supplies everything an agent needs to call it correctly in the prepare-then-execute workflow.

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 100% and both parameters are documented, including the provenance of goal_id, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds only the implicit framing that goal_id is scoped under property_id; it contributes no format, constraint, or source detail 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read a goal's complete editable definition') and enumerates what comes back (name, conditions, lock_version). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling d8a_get_property_context, which returns only goal summaries, so an agent can pick the right tool without reading either 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?

Gives a clear use context ('before preparing a change'), which routes the agent toward d8a_prepare_goal_change, and names an alternative with its limiting condition (summary-only goal listing in d8a_get_property_context). It stops short of explicitly naming the mutation tool or stating when not to call this at all.

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