mfp_get_goals

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to prove safety. The description adds mild context by specifying that it returns configured targets for all tracked nutrients and that date defaults to today, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as timezone handling or behavior when no goals are configured.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and remains compact. The Args and Returns sections are organized and useful, with no filler. It is slightly redundant with the input schema, but the structure is clear and appropriately sized.

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 simple read-only tool with strong annotations and a minimal parameter set, the description covers the essentials: what is retrieved, the parameters, and the return type. It does not mention edge cases like missing goals, but an output schema is reportedly available and the annotation set already establishes safety and idempotency.

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?

With reported schema_description_coverage at 0%, the description carries the parameter documentation burden. It names both parameters: date with format and default, and response_format with accepted values 'markdown' or 'json'. This is sufficient for an agent to construct valid input, even though the schema also happens to contain similar details.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get the user's daily nutrition goals (calories, protein, carbs, fat, etc.)'. This clearly identifies the tool's function and differentiates it from sibling getters like mfp_get_diary. The additional 'Returns the configured daily targets for all tracked nutrients' reinforces the scope.

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 intended use is implied by the name and opening sentence, but no explicit guidance is given about when to choose this over related tools such as mfp_set_goals or mfp_get_report. It does not state exclusions or provide alternate tool routing, so the guidance is adequate but left to inference.

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