List Goals

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read-only nature is covered. The description adds that the response contains conversion metrics and configuration, which is useful, but it does not disclose response shape, default date range behavior, or pagination.

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 with no filler or repetition. It front-loads the action and resource, then adds the two key output aspects: conversion metrics and configuration.

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 simple read-only list tool, the description plus a fully documented schema is mostly complete: the required siteId is clear, and the description summarizes the return content. It does not detail output structure or date defaults, but those are minor for this tool given the annotations and schema.

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 schema already documents all seven parameters and their formats. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('List all goals for a site') and clearly states what is included in the result ('current conversion metrics and configuration'). This distinguishes it from read-only list tools like rybbit_list_funnels and from goal mutation tools like rybbit_create_goal and rybbit_update_goal.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose: use this tool when you need all goals for a site. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives such as rybbit_get_goal_sessions for goal-specific session data or provide exclusions, so the guidance is only implicit.

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