Get goal

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description's useful addition is that there is exactly one goal and a fixed set of fields, but it says nothing about failure behavior when no goal exists or how the 'levers' values are structured. With annotations carrying the burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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 short sentences with no filler: the resource and its scope are front-loaded, and the ordering directive is appended where it is easy to scan. Every clause carries information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey what comes back, and it does so by listing the goal fields plus the hard/comfortable lever distinction. The parenthetical '(hard/comfortable)' and 'other projects' are slightly underspecified, keeping this from a 5.

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 tool takes zero parameters, which sets a baseline of 4 per the rubric. The description does not need to explain any inputs, and the field list it provides is about the return payload rather than parameters, so it neither helps nor hurts here.

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 the resource precisely ('The one yearly goal') and enumerates its contents (metric, starting value, current value, target, deadline, levers, projects), which is enough for an agent to distinguish it from set_goal or check_goal_draft. It never states the verb 'retrieve/get' explicitly, but the resource-level specificity still lands clearly above a generic 3.

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?

'Call first in most flows' is explicit, actionable ordering guidance that an agent can act on immediately. It does not name an alternative or a when-not-to-use condition, so it stops short of the 5 that would require routing between siblings like check_goal_draft or set_goal.

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