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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses meaningful behavior per action (record writes a run with status/usd/tokens; feed returns bot runs plus Agent Cost Log costs and failed API calls; rollup aggregates per day), but omits permission requirements, mutation side effects, and rate/limit behavior.

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 purpose followed by tightly packed per-action parameter lists; dense but every clause carries information. The run-on style is slightly hard to parse but wastes little.

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 14-parameter, three-action tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it covers all actions and squats each parameter into its action context. Missing only return-shape and permission/limit detail, which the tool's simplicity partly excuses.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it assigns parameters to each action (record takes bot/status/run_id/kind/usd/tokens/model/ms/note; feed takes since/bot/status/limit; rollup takes days) and supplies the status enum values. This mapping is information the flat schema does not convey.

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 resource (bot run ledger + cost view) and enumerates three concrete actions (record, feed, rollup). It's clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from cost-related siblings like budget_record or budget_budget_status.

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 action list implies when each mode applies (record a run, read a feed, aggregate by day), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing against sibling tools that also touch budgets/costs. Usage must be inferred from the action semantics.

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