get_goal_history

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, explaining that the tool is always cached, ignores the --live-reads flag, and why (backend limitation). This helps the agent understand the tool's data freshness and constraints.

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 three sentences, each serving a purpose: purpose, return fields, and cache behavior. It is front-loaded with the core function, then details, then important behavioral note. No unnecessary words.

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 tool with 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return fields, filtering, and cache behavior. It does not explain pagination parameters (limit/offset) but those are standard and described in the schema. Overall, it provides enough context for the agent to select and use the tool.

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 100% description coverage, so the description doesn't need to repeat parameter details. However, it adds value by clarifying that the tool returns 'daily data points' and 'contribution records per month,' which are not in the schema. This enriches the agent's understanding of the output.

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 monthly progress snapshots for financial goals, listing specific return fields (current_amount, target_amount, daily data points, contribution records). It distinguishes from siblings like get_goals or get_balance_history by focusing on monthly history snapshots.

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 this tool is cache-only and always returns cached data, with no live-mode counterpart. It explains the reason (GraphQL endpoint does not expose goal data), guiding the agent on when to use this tool versus others. It could be improved by explicitly stating when not to use, but the context is clear.

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