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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavior: amounts are bare numbers with no currency, and the currency must be fetched separately via get_organization_settings, plus it enumerates the returned amount categories. That is real added value beyond the 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?

Front-loaded with the entity definition, then filters, then return contents, then the currency caveat. Every sentence carries information, though the description is denser than a single tight sentence would be. Well organized with 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so (allocated, budgeted, remaining amounts), and it flags the currency ambiguity that would otherwise cause wrong outputs. Pagination behavior is left to the schema. Complete enough for correct invocation.

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 every parameter (including page, per_page, year, module, site_id, building_id, funding_source) is already documented in the schema. The description echoes the filter set and clarifies module = workspace, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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+resource ('List annual funding budgets') and disambiguates the entity by describing its shape: one figure per year, funding source and workspace/module, matching the dashboard Budget tab. In a sibling set crowded with create_budget, list_project_budget_items and get_budget, this makes the annual-funding entity unmistakably distinct.

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?

Gives concrete filter dimensions (year, funding source, module, site, building) and prescribes a dependency: call get_organization_settings for currency_code before stating a currency. It does not explicitly name alternatives like list_project_budget_items or get_budget, so it stops short of full when/when-not routing but provides clear usage context.

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