Get one goal

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description reinforces this with 'READ ONLY' and adds useful behavioral context: it returns full detail and optionally includes the user's written reflections. It does not substantially describe output shape, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with 'READ ONLY' and the primary purpose. The usage guidance and sibling alternative are compact and directly useful, with no filler.

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 simple single-goal retrieval tool with two well-documented parameters and strong annotations, this description covers what the tool does, when to use it, and how it differs from the closest alternative. Nothing essential 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema carries the parameter documentation. The description adds no new parameter guidance beyond echoing the optional reflections behavior, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('get') and resource ('single goal'), and clarifies it returns 'full detail' with optional reflections. It also explicitly differentiates itself from list_goals, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 gives an explicit usage condition: use when the conversation is about one specific goal. It also names the alternative (list_goals) and the condition for choosing it ('how are all my goals doing'), plus a rationale ('one request rather than many').

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