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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and partially meets it: it discloses that the response includes stopped status with a reason and the last 20 ledger events. However, it never states that this is a read operation, that close=true mutates/closes the budget, whether closing is reversible, or what permissions are needed.

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, no filler: the first front-loads the full contents of the status view, the second gives the one actionable parameter rule. Nothing repeats the name or 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?

For a no-annotation, no-output-schema tool the description does well on return contents, effectively standing in for an output schema. It falls short on the mutation semantics of close=true and on any preconditions or auth context, which an agent needs before triggering a budget-closing side effect.

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 coverage is 50%: the handle parameter is well documented in the schema (format and cross-agent sharing), but close has no schema description. The description adds real meaning to close ('when the run finishes') but still doesn't say what closing actually does or its consequences, so it only partly compensates.

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 (see) and resource (budget) and enumerates the exact payload: spend vs limits, remaining budget, stopped status and reason, and the last 20 ledger events. That enumeration cleanly separates it from record/reserve/open_budget in practice, but the description never names a sibling tool to route against.

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?

The only usage direction is 'Set close=true when the run finishes,' which covers one parameter's timing but not when to call budget_status versus open_budget, reserve, or record. An agent can infer it is a status-check tool, but the when/when-not and alternatives are left implicit.

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