Get a goal

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds the HTTP method (GET) and authorization class, which provides some extra context. However, it does not disclose potential errors (e.g., 404), rate limits, or other behavioral nuances. The description adds marginal value beyond annotations.

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 very brief—two sentences—and front-loaded with the core purpose. No unnecessary words or information. Every sentence 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?

Given the simplicity (one parameter, output schema exists, annotations present), the description is adequate but minimal. It does not include examples, common errors, or return value hints (though output schema covers returns). Could be more helpful with usage guidance.

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%, meaning the input schema provides no descriptions for the path.id parameter. The description does not clarify what the ID represents (e.g., goal ID, format, or constraints). It adds no meaning beyond the schema structure.

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 title and description both state 'Get a goal,' clearly indicating the action and resource. The HTTP method and path further specify the operation. It distinguishes from sibling tools like pc_patch_goals_by_id (update) and pc_get_companies_by_company_id_goals (list).

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 provides the HTTP method and authorization class, which implies usage context (retrieve a single goal by ID). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusions or prerequisites.

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