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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real domain semantics beyond that: a shared-budget campaign's own daily budget cannot be changed separately, which explains downstream behavior of the data being returned. No mention of result limits or pagination, so not a 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the verb and the returned field set, then the disambiguation and the exclusion. No repetition of the title and no filler.

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, and the description compensates by naming the returned fields (id, name, daily amount, campaign count) and how they relate to campaign records. It stops short of describing ordering, pagination, or behavior for very large accounts, which leaves a small gap for a listing tool with openWorldHint.

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 100% and the single accountId parameter is already fully documented in the schema, including its optionality and format. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the 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 ('List the account's SHARED budgets') and immediately enumerates the returned fields. It explicitly differentiates itself from the campaign-level budget picture by saying campaigns with their own budget are not listed here and pointing to msads_get_campaigns for the budgetId.

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?

Clear on what this covers and what it excludes ('Campaigns with their own budget are not listed here'), which tells the agent when not to reach for it. It does not name the sibling to use for editing shared budget amounts (msads_set_shared_budget_amount) or for creating one, so the routing is only half-explicit.

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