mkt_goals

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden; it does state read-only and enumerates the fields each goal carries, which is useful. It does not disclose output volume (how many goals are returned), whether the list is static or filtered by the facts package, or any auth/pagination behavior.

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 dense sentence, front-loaded with the read-only nature and the three goal classes, with no filler. It is slightly packed but every clause describes returned content.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey return shape; it does list the per-goal fields, which is the right move. It leaves the input side thin (only a pointer to the facts package) and says nothing about result size or ordering, so a caller still has 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?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single 'facts' parameter, so baseline 3 applies. The description's mention of 'by product type/stage' implies the facts package drives filtering, but it does not clarify how facts fields map to the listed goals, leaving that to the referenced 'mkt gtm diagnose' package.

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 uses a precise verb+resource: a read-only catalog listing three goal categories (volume, usage, commercial), each with metric, criteria, proof/disproof and recommended platforms. That distinguishes it from planning siblings like mkt_goal_plan, though it never names any sibling explicitly.

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 hints that goals are organized by product type/stage, but gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite (e.g., call after diagnosis, before mkt_goal_plan). The agent must infer the workflow position from the tool name alone.

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