get_member_goals

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating safe read-only behavior. The description adds that it returns only the last 50 events and returns an error if the member is not found, providing useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 concise and well-structured: a brief header line, a usage paragraph, clearly labeled Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 parameters, read-only, output schema present), the description covers all critical aspects: purpose, usage guidance, parameter details for required params, return format, error case, and limits. It is sufficiently complete for correct tool invocation.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the two required parameters well (list_id format and source, email_address handling) but omits the optional 'account' parameter entirely. Given the baseline for low coverage is low, this is adequate but not complete.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves the last 50 Goal events for a specific audience member. It uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('Goal events'), and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_member_activity by noting the latter is for broader email activity.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('to see which tracked website Goals a member has hit') and provides alternatives: use get_member_activity for broader email activity and search_members to locate a member first. This gives clear guidance on tool selection.

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