List Goals

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the transparency burden. 'Get' indicates a read operation, and it specifies what data is returned. However, it does not disclose behavior such as pagination (max_records parameter), default filtering scope, or whether all goals are returned by default. The description is accurate but lacks behavioral depth.

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 description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word adds value. It avoids redundancy and is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description reasonably explains return values by listing the fields. Given the tool's moderate complexity (14 filter parameters), the description is sufficient for a list operation, though it could mention that filtering is supported. It does not need to repeat schema details, and it gives enough context for an agent to understand the tool's purpose.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description provides a high-level summary of the data fields (scope, type, target/current values, completion, due dates) but does not add semantic meaning beyond what the schema already documents. It does not elaborate on filter usage or parameter interactions.

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 description clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('company and employee goals') and lists the key attributes returned (scope, type, target/current values, completion and due dates). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_employees or list_absences, which target different resources.

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 implies usage by resource type but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. Among the many list_* siblings, list_goals is the only one for goals, so context makes it clear, but there is no direct guidance.

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