list_goals

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It provides the full response shape, including nullable fields and allowed operator values, and clarifies that this is a configuration-focused listing rather than a performance query. It does not discuss pagination, authentication, or error behavior, but for a simple single-parameter list tool the provided detail is strong.

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 front-loaded with the tool's purpose, immediately distinguishes it from top_goals, and includes a compact response example. Every sentence contributes either to disambiguation or to understanding the return format, with no filler.

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?

With one parameter, full schema documentation, and an explicit response shape in the description, the agent has everything needed to invoke the tool correctly and interpret its output. The tool is simple enough that missing authentication or rate-limit details are not critical gaps.

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?

The schema documents the only parameter ('site') and even tells the agent to source it from list_sites, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds context by saying 'goals CONFIGURED on a site,' but does not add meaningful parameter-level detail beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool lists configured goals on a site, explicitly contrasting with performance data by saying 'what it measures, not how those goals performed.' It also names top_goals as the alternative for conversion numbers, making the distinction from a sibling tool immediate.

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?

It explicitly says to use top_goals when conversion numbers are needed, providing a clear when-not-to-use rule and naming the alternative tool. The description also frames this tool as the correct choice for configuration/measurement definitions.

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