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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond the schema by explaining that the tool 'Does NOT grant anything,' that 'The request is kept permanently and shown on the owner's dashboard,' and that the correct behavior is to 'ask once and carry on.' This discloses persistence, visibility, and non-mutating intent.

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 concise sentences deliver clear purpose, a crucial limitation, and practical guidance. Every sentence adds value without repetition or fluff. The description is front-loaded with the action verb, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand the tool's role.

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 simple tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, and usage context effectively. It could mention what happens after the request (e.g., human review timeline) but provided enough for correct invocation. The persistence and 'ask once' guidance make it reasonably complete.

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%, with each parameter (amount_usd, reason, deployment) already described. The description adds minimal parameter-specific detail beyond 'records why' which maps to the reason parameter. Per baseline, when the schema fully explains parameters, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Asks the human who owns this agent for more budget, and records why.' It clearly states the tool's function and distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting 'Does NOT grant anything,' which separates it from budget-delegation or verification tools.

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 description gives implicit usage guidance by stating 'the answer to running out is to ask once and carry on rather than to fail silently in a loop.' This tells the agent when to invoke the tool (when budget is exhausted). However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives or list exclusions, so it loses one point.

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