metrica.goals.get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing beyond the word "get", which weakly implies a read. There is no statement about required permissions, whether account_id must resolve to a client-login, error behavior for a missing goal_id, or the shape of the response.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no padding and the operation is front-loaded, which is good. But the brevity reflects under-specification rather than economy, so it does not fully earn a high score on structure.

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?

For a tool with four parameters (including a nested object), no annotations, no output schema, and only thin schema documentation, the description is far too thin to prepare an agent for a correct call. Everything an agent needs about parameter meaning and behavior is missing from all available fields.

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 only 25%: account_id is documented in the schema, but counter_id, goal_id, and the undescribed nested "params" object are not. The description's "by id" loosely gestures at goal_id but adds no format, syntax, or semantics for any parameter, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 phrase "get goal by id" names a specific verb (get) and resource (goal) and states the identifying key, so the basic operation is clear. However, it does nothing to distinguish this from the sibling metrica.goals.list or metrica.goals.get variants in the broader Metrica/Direct family beyond the resource name already embedded in the tool name itself.

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 offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no pointer to alternatives such as metrica.goals.list for enumeration or metrica.goals.update/delete for mutations. The agent must infer the appropriate context entirely from the tool name.

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