get_reading_goal

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered; the description reinforces 'Read-only' and adds genuine behavioral context: the return shape ({returned, offset, goals}), per-goal fields, ordering, and that 'goals' is empty when none exist. It stops short of discussing pagination behavior beyond the shape, but that is minor.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and scope, followed by return shape and then sibling routing — no filler sentences. Every clause (scope, ordering, return fields, empty case, alternatives) carries information an agent needs.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by enumerating the return structure and the fields of each goal. Combined with the two fully-documented parameters and the readOnly annotation, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret the result.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters (limit, offset) are fully documented in the schema, so the description need not compensate. It only implies pagination via the returned/offset fields in the response shape, adding no syntax or default details beyond the schema — baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get ... reading goals') plus a clear scope constraint ('active (non-archived)') and an ordering rule ('soonest end date first'). It also names the sibling tools that handle the other operations (set_reading_goal, delete_reading_goal), so an agent can distinguish it without inspecting schemas.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use set_reading_goal to create/change/archive and delete_reading_goal to delete. The condition selecting this tool (read the current active goals) is unambiguous, and the empty-result case is disclosed.

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