mfp_get_goals

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that the tool returns 'configured daily targets' for 'all tracked nutrients,' which clarifies it reports existing settings rather than computing values. It does not discuss auth, rate limits, or edge cases, but coverage is adequate for a simple read tool.

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 opening two sentences are clear and front-loaded. The subsequent `Args:` and `Returns:` blocks duplicate information already present in the input schema and output schema, so they add length without much new signal. Appropriately sized overall, but not maximally lean.

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 read-only single-parameter tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description is sufficient: it identifies the resource, defines the optional date parameter, specifies response_format choices, and states what the return value describes. No critical information needed to invoke the tool correctly is missing. It would be complete even without the redundant schema duplication.

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 reported as 0% at the wrapper level, so the description compensates by listing `date` with its optionality and format/default and `response_format` with its allowed values. This gives an agent the parameter semantics needed to call the tool correctly. It largely restates schema details rather than adding new meaning, so it is functional but not exemplary.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Get the user's daily nutrition goals') and enumerates the nutrient categories (calories, protein, carbs, fat). It clarifies the return scope as 'configured daily targets for all tracked nutrients,' which distinguishes it from siblings like mfp_get_diary or mfp_set_goals. Even without naming alternatives, the resource is 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?

The description implies use whenever the user's daily nutrition goal targets are needed, and it clearly denotes a read operation. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer routing from the resource name. No exclusions or sibling comparisons are provided.

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