ReviewGoals

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: it discloses the analysis performed (underfunding amounts, on-track count, Ready to Assign coverage) and warns that any funding action needs user confirmation, which is workflow guidance annotations cannot express.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler: the capability and its output facets come first, the next-step routing second. Nothing redundant with the title or schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and a 100%-covered schema handles both parameters. Combined with annotations carrying the safety profile, the description supplies everything an agent needs to select and invoke it, including the downstream workflow.

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 both parameters (month, plan_id) already document defaults and accepted formats, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only implies the month scoping and adds no syntax or default detail beyond it — baseline 3.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Review category targets (goals) for a month') followed by an explicit enumeration of what the review surfaces: underfunded categories and shortfall, count on track, and Ready to Assign coverage. This clearly separates it from GetMonth/ListCategories and from the mutation siblings.

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?

Gives clear context for when to run it and names the follow-up tools (AssignToCategory, MoveMoney) with a prerequisite ('after the user confirms'). There is no explicit when-not or 'use X instead' exclusion, so it falls short of a 5.

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