Goals

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

The readOnlyHint annotation is true and the description doesn't contradict it, but the description adds minimal behavioral detail beyond the annotation. It doesn't mention potential side effects (none expected) or data access implications, but for a read-only report tool, the annotation suffices.

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 extremely concise, fitting the key info into a single sentence. It avoids fluff and focuses on the two report modes, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given the simple nature of the tool (a read-only report), the description covers the essential functionality and the main parameter behavior. It doesn't explain return formats or pagination, but the schema and sibling context imply a standard Matomo API response, so completeness is adequate.

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?

All six parameters have schema descriptions that cover their meaning and defaults. The description reinforces the 'report' parameter's two modes, adding clarity. The descriptions for date, period, and segment are standard and sufficient.

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 tool's function: reporting goal conversions or listing goals. It distinguishes between the two modes via the 'report' parameter, making the purpose specific. It doesn't mention alternative tools, but the resource (goals) is clear.

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 for goal-related analytics but doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools like matomo_pages or matomo_events. It lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it, though the purpose is clear enough for basic scenarios.

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