List goals in a company

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it is a GET operation requiring 'board_or_agent' authorization, which provides useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 but redundant: the first sentence repeats the title. The second sentence adds operational details (HTTP method, auth class). No wasted words, but could be more efficient by dropping the repetition.

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?

Despite having a simple schema and output schema, the description lacks parameter explanation, scope detail (all goals vs filtered), and usage context. Incomplete for an agent to confidently invoke without external knowledge.

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 only parameter (path.companyId) is not mentioned in the description. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate but completely fails to explain what companyId is or how to provide it.

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 action 'List goals' and the resource 'in a company', matching the title. It distinguishes from sibling tools like pc_get_goals_by_id (single goal) and pc_post_companies_by_company_id_goals (create goal).

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., pc_get_goals_by_id for a specific goal, or pc_post_companies_by_company_id_goals to create). No context on filtering, pagination, or prerequisites.

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