get_goals

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation ('Get all') and describes available filters, but it does not explicitly state that no data is modified, mention authentication limits, or describe pagination edge cases. The detail about 'current/target amounts and deadlines' adds some context beyond the tool name.

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 concise: a single front-loaded sentence followed by a structured Args list. The list is easy to scan and adds necessary detail. The inclusion of 'ctx' as a parameter (not present in the schema) and the slightly cryptic note example are minor inefficiencies, but overall the description earns its place.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are covered elsewhere. The description explains the resource, key fields, pagination, and filtering options. It does not mention any side effects or authorization requirements, but for a read/filter tool with no annotations, this is reasonably complete. Minor gaps include not addressing edge cases like empty results or combined filters.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so well by explaining each parameter's purpose, including filter syntax examples like 'gte.2025-01-01' and prefix modifiers (eq., contains., contains-i.). However, it lists 'ctx' which is not in the schema, and the note example 'contains-i.vacation' is somewhat unclear, preventing a perfect score.

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 'Get all savings goals with current/target amounts and deadlines', which specifies the verb (get), resource (savings goals), and the key data fields. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_budgets or get_categories, which target different financial entities.

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 usage for retrieving savings goals and explains pagination and filter options, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use this tool. Its context is clear but lacks exclusionary guidance, so it sits at a mid-level score.

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