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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the trailing "Read-only" adds no new information. The description does contribute ordering (worst first) and scope (three risk conditions), but leaves thresholds for "well below plan" and the shape of the returned numbers undefined. Adequate but not rich.

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 tight sentences: the resource and scope come first, then the intended query, then a short safety note. No redundant clauses or filler.

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's "with the main numbers" leaves the returned fields ambiguous, and the risk thresholds that determine inclusion are unstated. For a zero-required-parameter read tool this is workable, but the agent calling it cannot predict the response shape.

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?

There is a single optional language parameter with full schema description and an enum, so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about parameter behavior, which is acceptable at 100% coverage but earns only the baseline.

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 concrete verb and resource: lists clients whose budget is exceeded, forecast to overrun, or under-spending, ordered worst first. Conditions and ordering give an agent a precise picture. It does not name the adjacent budget_status or budget_pacing_plan siblings, so the boundary between them remains implicit.

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 phrase "Use for 'which clients need attention on budget'" anchors a clear use case, giving the agent a real trigger. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions, so an agent must infer that budget_status and budget_pacing_plan cover different questions.

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