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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds detail about bulk support, but does not explain pagination (skip/take) or the relationship between patient_id and patient_ids parameters.

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 very concise with two sentences, front-loading the main purpose and then adding the bulk capability. No wasted words.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and a key feature (bulk), but lacks details on pagination, return format, and error handling, leaving gaps in completeness.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only mentions patient_ids and bulk support at a high level, leaving skip, take, account, and patient_id not described individually.

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 nutrition/health goals for a Dietbox patient, specifying types like weight targets, habit goals, and custom objectives. It also mentions bulk support via patient_ids, distinguishing it from siblings like dietbox_get_goal_progress.

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 context for listing goals and bulk execution, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., dietbox_get_goal_progress) or when to prefer singular patient_id vs patient_ids array.

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