Get Savings Goals

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

Annotations already declare this a safe read-only, non-open-world operation, so the description's job is to add behavior beyond that. It does add the compact-vs-verbose distinction and the caveat that compact goals only carry 'whichever of these fields Monarch returns', implying fields may be absent. It says nothing about pagination, ordering, or size limits on the list.

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 purpose and the sibling linkage are front-loaded well, but the block of nine raw camelCase field names is bulky and partly duplicates what the output schema already carries. The docstring-style 'Args:' layout is serviceable but not tightly edited.

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 two-parameter read-only list tool with an output schema and annotations, the description covers the variable behavior (archiving, verbosity, possible missing fields) and the downstream consumer of goal IDs. Only list-level behavior such as pagination or ordering is unaddressed, which is minor here.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must carry the full burden and does: both booleans are given concrete meaning, and the verbose flag is framed as 'full upstream objects' versus the enumerated compact field set. An agent can choose the right flag combination without guessing.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('List savings goals') plus the payload ('targets, balances, and progress'), which tells an agent exactly what comes back. The closing note that goal IDs feed set_savings_goal_budget_amount explicitly positions it against a named sibling.

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?

Guidance is limited to per-flag behavior ('True also returns archived goals', 'True returns the full upstream objects'), which implicitly says the default path is compact and non-archived. There is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not, and no guidance on when compact is preferable to verbose beyond the field descriptions themselves.

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