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

Annotations already declare the operation read-only and non-destructive; the description adds useful behavioral details beyond that, such as returning a full snapshot, including categoryName/groupName per row, and instructing the agent to use those names and never show raw ids. It does not discuss auth, limits, or empty-month behavior, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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 a single dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and packs the output structure into parenthetical dashes. It is efficient, though the run-on structure could be slightly easier to parse.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return shape, and it covers the main components (per-category fields, ABT, totals) plus the naming rule. It omits details like totals aggregation or multi-household behavior, but those are either implied or handled by the schema.

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%, so the schema fully documents yearMonth and householdId. The description repeats the YYYY-MM format for yearMonth but adds no new semantics for either parameter, keeping this at the baseline.

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 names a specific operation (Get full budget snapshot) on a specific resource (monthly budget) and enumerates the returned components: per-category assigned/activity/carryover/available, ABT, and totals. It clearly positions this as the 'where is my money?' tool, which separates it from the transaction/account listing siblings.

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?

It explicitly says to use this for any 'where is my money?' question, giving a clear triggering context. It does not, however, name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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