mfp_get_goals

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds that it returns 'configured daily targets for all tracked nutrients,' which clarifies scope. However, no additional behavioral details like error handling, rate limits, or warning about missing goals are provided. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate but not rich.

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 structured but includes an Args section that duplicates schema information, making it slightly redundant. It is not excessively long but has unnecessary repetition, so it doesn't earn a higher score.

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 good annotations and schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. It specifies the return type (str), the default date behavior, and the scope (all tracked nutrients). It doesn't detail edge cases, but those are not critical for a simple getter.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for both date and response_format, so the description's Args section adds no new meaning. The description mentions date defaults to today, but that is also in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb ('Get') and resource ('daily nutrition goals'), listing nutrient types and stating it returns configured targets for all tracked nutrients. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like mfp_set_goals and other getters.

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 'get' vs 'set' contrast with sibling tools makes the usage context clear, although no explicit alternatives are named. The description implies this is the read-only tool for retrieving daily goals, but does not mention when not to use it or exceptions.

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