list_goals

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. The description is essentially just 'Get goal list' with zero behavioral information - no mention that this is a read-only operation (though inherently implied), no pagination/performance caveats, no indication of what happens with profile_id requirements. The param descriptions in the schema carry most of the 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?

The description is short (one phrase), which is concise, but it's under-specified rather than efficiently complete. The schema's param descriptions are well-structured, but the main description says nothing meaningful beyond the tool name itself.

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 tool with 6 parameters (including pagination, filtering, sorting, and profile scoping), the description provides almost no context. There's no output schema to explain the return structure, and the description doesn't describe pagination defaults, filtering syntax, or how the filter object maps to goal columns. The profile_id behavior is well-documented in the schema, but nothing above it explains the tool's full behavior.

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% - every parameter has a Japanese description explaining its purpose (limit, filter, offset, order_by, order_desc, profile_id). The description itself adds no parameter info beyond the schema. The profile_id param has notably good documentation about the API key scoping behavior. With 100% coverage, the schema already does the heavy lifting, so a baseline 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 '目標一覧を取得' (Get goal list) identifies the verb (取得/get) and resource (目標/goals), but it's extremely terse. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like list_custom_entries, list_personas etc., though the resource name in the tool name provides the main differentiation. It adds minimal value beyond the tool name itself.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Parameters hint at pagination and filtering capabilities, but the description gives no context about when this should be used over list_custom_entries or other listing tools, nor about profile-scoped vs account-scoped API key behavior (which is buried in a param description, not usage guidance).

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