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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: amounts are bare numbers with no currency attached, and a second call is required to state currency. That is a real trap an agent would otherwise fall into, though pagination/auto-fetch behavior is left entirely to the schema.

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 what the tool returns, then filters, then the currency caveat. Every sentence carries information an agent needs and none repeats the title.

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 usefully enumerates returned fields (allocated, budgeted, remaining) and flags the currency ambiguity, and the schema handles pagination. It lacks any ordering/default-sort note, which is a minor gap rather than a blocking one.

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 every filter (year, funding_source, module, site_id, building_id) is already documented there, so the description's filter list is largely redundant. It does clarify module = workspace and that it returns the three amount fields, but for parameter meaning it adds little beyond the schema; 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 (List) and resource (annual funding budgets), and pins down the row shape ('one figure per year, funding source … and workspace (module)'), which separates it from get_budget and from the project-scoped budget items list. It also anchors the output to a known surface (the dashboard Budget tab), so an agent knows exactly what data set it is retrieving.

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 clear context for use — filter by year, funding source, module, site or building — and an explicit follow-up instruction ('call get_organization_settings for currency_code before stating one'). It does not name a when-not condition or point at the closest alternative (get_budget for a single budget), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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