mah_list_goals

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered, but the description adds nothing on top: no pagination, ordering, or freshness behavior, and no mention of the authentication/active-patient state the surrounding sign_in/set_active_patient tools imply is required. For a read tool it is close to a restatement of the name.

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 short, front-loaded sentence with zero padding — nothing wasted. It is arguably too terse rather than verbose, but as structure it is clean.

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?

A low-complexity read with no output schema and a fully documented optional param, so the description only needs to supply context; it omits the auth/active-patient prerequisite that the sibling auth tools make relevant, leaving a small but real gap.

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% and the single 'view' enum is documented in exhaustive detail in the schema itself, including which readers get projection reduction. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb (List) and resource (patient goals) with the data source (MyAtriumHealth), which lets an agent separate it from the other mah_list_* readers by domain. It stops short of stating what a 'goal' contains or how it differs in scope from related readers like mah_get_health_summary.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the many sibling listers, nor any precondition (e.g. that a patient must be selected or the user signed in). The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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