mah_list_goals

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered structurally. The description itself adds nothing behavioral: no mention of pagination, scoping to the active patient, or what a goal record contains. It restates the read operation without enriching it.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence naming the verb and resource with zero filler. It is tight and easy to scan, though it spends none of its brevity on routing or scoping information.

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 with annotations covering safety and a fully documented parameter, the one-line description is minimally viable. It is thin, however: it never says what a 'goal' comprises or that results are tied to the currently active patient, which matters in a 20+ tool clinical suite.

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 parameter is documented exhaustively in the schema, including which readers get projection reduction. The description adds no parameter meaning of its own, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (patient goals) and names the data source (MyAtriumHealth). It is distinguishable from siblings like mah_list_allergies or mah_list_care_team by the 'goals' resource, but the description does not explicitly contrast itself with those alternatives.

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 only guidance is the implicit fact that this is a listing operation. There is no when-to-use statement, no note that the caller must first select an active patient (mah_set_active_patient exists as a sibling), and no exclusions. The agent must infer the context entirely.

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