get_goals

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of describing behavior. It discloses what the tool returns (complete goal details, relationships, updates) and that it's batch-oriented, but does not mention error handling for invalid/missing IDs, partial-failure behavior, or auth prerequisites. Basic read behavior is implied but not explicit.

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 concise sentences package the purpose, return value, and efficiency benefit with no filler. Information is front-loaded and every phrase adds value.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description provides adequate context: it states what is fetched, what details are returned, and the advantage over the singular alternative. It could mention edge-case behavior but is otherwise complete for a batch fetch.

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 already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter, including ARI format and maximum count. The description adds no new semantic detail about the parameter itself; its value mainly restates the batch context.

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 fetches multiple goals by their IDs in a batch request, which distinguishes it from get_goal and list_goals/search_goals. It names the specific resource and operation, and explicitly contrasts with get_goal.

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 provides clear guidance: use this when you need multiple goals by known IDs, and it is more efficient than calling get_goal repeatedly. It does not explicitly exclude list_goals or search_goals, but the batch-by-ID purpose implies that distinction.

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