investor_get_goal_progress

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

No annotations exist, so the description must convey behavioral traits. While it hints at read-only behavior (providing progress metrics), it does not disclose permissions, side effects, rate limits, or whether data is real-time or cached. The description lacks depth for a tool with no 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 a single sentence that conveys key outputs but is somewhat run-on. It could be more structured with bullet points or clearer separation of metrics. It is concise but at the expense of completeness.

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 two optional parameters and no output schema, the description should explain parameter defaults (e.g., what happens when account_ids is null) and the return format. It only lists output fields without detailing their meaning or behavior, leaving significant gaps.

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 description does not explain the purpose or effect of the two parameters (account_ids and expected_return_percent). With 0% schema description coverage, the tool definition fails to add any meaning beyond the schema structure.

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 that the tool retrieves progress toward long-term goals, including specific metrics like capital target % and passive-income coverage. Although it does not explicitly use a verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', the noun phrase 'Progress to the user's long-term goals' implies retrieval. It distinguishes from siblings like investor_get_portfolio by focusing on 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as investor_recommend_next_action or investor_analyze_portfolio. The description does not specify context, prerequisites, or alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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