get_goals

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

Far exceeds the annotation baseline (readOnlyHint/openWorldHint): it warns that start is 1-indexed and that start=0 silently returns [], that an invalid status throws GarminError before any request, that fetching is paginated until an empty page, and that 2000 pages without an empty page raise an error. These are exactly the non-obvious runtime traits an agent must know to call the tool correctly.

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?

Defaults are front-loaded and each clause carries a real constraint, but the sentences are long run-ons that pack multiple facts (pagination pattern, request cap, header injection) into one block, which slightly hurts scannability.

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 parameterless read tool with no output schema, the description covers defaults, error conditions, pagination termination, and the request cap thoroughly; only an explicit statement of what the returned goal records contain (or a one-line purpose statement) is missing.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does: it documents defaults for all three parameters (status='active', start=1, limit=30) and explains the 1-indexed start semantics. The meaning of the status enum values (future/past) is left to the schema, so it is not a full 5.

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 is entirely about mechanics (defaults, pagination, error behavior) and never states in plain terms that it retrieves the user's goals from goal-service. The resource is inferable from the name and the mention of 'goal-service', but an agent gets no explicit 'this returns your goals' statement, and there is no differentiation from siblings like get_training_plans.

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?

It discloses that status defaults to 'active', which implicitly tells the agent to pass a different status to see future/past goals, but it never says when to use this tool versus the many other retrieval tools, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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