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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and does well: it declares 'Read-only; sends nothing,' discloses the lookback window (last 7 days), and enumerates exactly what is computed, including the non-obvious 'dollars spent after a cap would have stopped them' metric. It omits any hint of cost, pagination, or rate limits, so it is not fully exhaustive.

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 verb and subject, then the content list, then the safety note and a usage instruction. Two compact sentences do real work. Slightly dense with bracketed prefix and parenthetical, but no wasted sentences.

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?

Covers purpose, time window, output contents, safety profile, and a next action for a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool. Only gaps are explicit routing versus sibling report tools and any note on record granularity, minor for a read-only report.

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?

Zero parameters with 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description adds that scope is determined implicitly by the caller's key or IP, which is meaningful context for a parameterless tool where the agent otherwise could not know what data set is targeted.

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?

Specific verb (Draft) + resource (amine-English report of the last 7 days) + explicit content enumeration (runs, spend, over-cap runs, dollars spent past caps). Clearly distinguished from siblings like budget_budget_status or budget_record and parallel weekly_report tools for other subsystems.

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?

States the target scope ('for your key (or IP)') and instructs 'Show it to your user,' giving clear context for when to invoke it. It does not explicitly contrast with budget_budget_status, approve_weekly_report, or other report siblings, so an agent must infer the choice.

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