Read the daily goals

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower; the description goes further by explaining that goals take effect from a settings_since date and that an earlier effective date than the requested day is normal. That is genuine interpretive context that prevents the agent misreading stale-looking targets.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose and returned fields before the scoping notes; no filler. The settings_since clause sits in the same breath as the parameter discussion, which reads slightly ambiguous about whether it is an input or an output field.

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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema present, the description is essentially complete: purpose, returned fields, date scoping, and the settings_since semantics are all covered. The only soft spot is the ambiguous status of settings_since, which the output schema could have clarified.

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 100% and the sole parameter's meaning, including relative-date handling, is fully spelled out in the schema, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds only 'date is the day asked for', and its mention of 'settings_since' names something that is not an input parameter (additionalProperties is false), which risks slight confusion rather than adding parameter clarity.

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 names a specific verb+resource ('Read the user's daily goals for a day') and enumerates the returned content (energy, macro grams/percent, BMR/TMR), so the agent knows exactly what this returns. It does not explicitly point at the sibling it is not (set_targets) or distinguish itself from get_today/get_profile, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'date is the day asked for' hints at how to source the parameter but there is no statement of when to use this tool versus set_targets, get_today, or get_profile, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The actual date-resolution guidance ('call get_today and count from its date') lives in the schema, not the description.

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