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

The annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description repeats 'Read-only' but adds no new behavioral context (e.g., auth requirements, rate limits, or side effects). Given annotation coverage, the description is adequate but not enhanced.

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, concise sentence conveys the purpose and key output details. No fluff or redundant phrasing beyond the acceptable 'Read-only' note.

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 of the operation (no parameters, no complex output schema), the description is complete for an agent to understand what the tool returns. It does not mention output format or pagination, but for a budget list this is likely unnecessary.

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 tool has no parameters in the schema, so there is nothing to explain. The description correctly implies a global list operation without requiring input.

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 the operation ('Return'), the resource ('budgets'), and key attributes (hierarchical, month-to-date spend, percentage used, blocking mode). It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like list_budget_scopes or list_policies.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when you need budget list vs. scopes or policies). The description implies it is for viewing budgets, but it does not state conditions or exclusions, leaving some ambiguity.

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