Check goal draft

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the interaction contract (problems[] / next_question) and that the caller should iterate until problems is empty. It does not describe return shape in detail, but the annotations carry most of the behavioral burden.

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?

One dense paragraph with zero filler: purpose, rubric criteria, side-effect guarantee, and the follow-up loop are all front-loaded. Every clause earns its place and nothing is repeated from structured fields unnecessarily.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description names the returned fields and the loop-termination condition, and it explains that nothing is mutated. For a 5-param, 0-required validation tool this is sufficient for an agent to call it and act on the result correctly.

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 60%, and the description compensates by enumerating the rubric semantics each field must satisfy (countable metric, value today for baseline, target, deadline within 12 months), which maps to metric/baseline/target/deadline and adds meaning beyond the raw schema types. The 'title' parameter is not addressed, leaving a minor gap.

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 (check) applied to a specific resource (a goal that is not saved yet) against an explicit rubric. It clearly distinguishes this tool from set_goal by noting the goal is unsaved and that nothing is persisted, so an agent knows exactly what this does before opening the 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 explicit workflow guidance: loop until problems is empty, then call set_goal. The alternative (set_goal) and the condition that selects it are both named, so the when-to-use/when-to-proceed logic is fully specified rather than implied.

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