List goals

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the freshness of loggedHours tied to log_time, and a critical instruction to reuse returned ids verbatim in other calls. This is valuable behavioral disclosure not captured in annotations.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: purpose and output, usage context, and id-reuse guidance. It is front-loaded with 'READ ONLY' and avoids fluff, though 'READ ONLY' is slightly redundant given the readOnlyHint annotation. Still, it remains efficient and well-organized.

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 explains what is returned (target hours, logged hours, progress, deadline), why ids matter (reuse in other tools), and how data stays current (tied to log_time). For a simple list tool with annotations covering safety, nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 every parameter (status, labelIds, categories, includeStats) already has an explanatory description. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies as the schema carries the full burden.

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?

Description states a precise verb and resource: 'Lists the user's goals with target hours, hours already logged, progress and deadline.' It also ties the tool to concrete user questions ('what am I working on' and 'am I behind'), making its purpose unmistakable and clearly distinct from siblings like list_tasks or get_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?

Explicitly frames when the tool is appropriate ('This is the tool that answers...') and explains freshness behavior ('loggedHours is accumulated by time entries, so it moves whenever log_time is called'), which guides when to call it relative to log_time. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for correct selection.

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