get_weight_goals

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The phrase 'in effect over a date range' adds real semantics — goals are filtered by temporal validity, not by a snapshot — but the description says nothing about how many goals may be returned, whether goals can overlap, or what the response looks like, and there is no output schema to fill that gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than genuinely concise.

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 simple two-parameter read tool this could be adequate, but with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the definition leaves the agent guessing about date formatting, end_date defaulting, and whether the result is a single goal or a list.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does not. It never states the expected date format for start_date, and it does not explain how the optional nullable end_date behaves — whether null means open-ended, defaults to today, or includes the boundary day.

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 definition pairs a specific verb ('Get') with a specific resource ('weight goals') and adds scope ('in effect over a date range'). The word 'goals' distinguishes it from the sibling get_weight, which implies measurement retrieval, but the description never states that distinction explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance: no prerequisites, no exclusions, and no mention of the sibling get_weight or any alternative for retrieving weight data. The agent must infer that this tool returns targets rather than recorded weights.

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