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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so safety needs no restating. The description adds a non-obvious data trait instead: amounts are bare numbers with no currency attached, which prevents a silent misinterpretation of results.

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?

Two sentences, both earning their place, with the resource scope front-loaded and the currency caveat following immediately.

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 for return-value interpretation and does so by disclosing the currency-less amount format. Minor omission: no indication of the shape or ordering of returned items.

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 page, per_page, category and project_id are already fully documented, including the auto-pagination default. The category list in the description merely echoes the enum and adds no filtering syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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?

Names a specific verb (List) and resource (project budget line items) and enumerates the categories covered, making it clearly distinct from the singular get_project_budget_item and from list_budgets.

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 a concrete cross-tool instruction: call get_organization_settings for currency_code before stating an amount. It does not, however, explain when to prefer this list over get_project_budget_item or list_budgets, so the selection guidance is incomplete.

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