get_goals

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the profile-local date semantics, which is useful context. However, it does not discuss return format, error behavior, or what happens when no goals exist for the date.

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, efficiency-focused sentence with zero wasted words. 'Get the goals' plus the date qualifier conveys the purpose completely in one line.

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?

With only 1 parameter, comprehensive annotations, and an output schema present, the description's burden is light. The tool is structurally simple (read-only, single param), and the description covers the main semantic nuance (profile-local date). A stronger description could clarify return format when no goals exist, but overall it is adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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 description coverage is 0%, but there is only one required parameter ('date') with a clear format: date. The description mentions 'profile-local date', which hints that the date is interpreted in the profile's local timezone—adding value beyond the schema. However, this is minimal enrichment for a single obvious parameter.

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+resource ('Get the goals') and adds scoping context ('applicable on a profile-local date'), which clarifies what is being retrieved. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_meal_history or get_summary, though 'goals' is a distinct concept from meals and summaries.

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 description implies use case by mentioning 'profile-local date', clearly scoping when this applies. But it does not explain when to use this versus alternatives like set_goals (the write counterpart), or provide exclusions or alternatives. No explicit when/when-not guidance is present.

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