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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key safety trait (never moves money) and the computation logic (income, expenses -> net, savings rate, by category). It does not mention return format or side effects, but the explicit non-money-moving guarantee adds valuable transparency.

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?

The description is a single sentence with no filler. The key information is front-loaded, and every part earns its place. Highly concise.

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 no output schema or annotations, the description covers the core purpose and safety boundary. However, it lacks detail on return value structure and parameter formats, which are important for correct invocation. It is adequate but not fully 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It connects the parameters to the formula (income, expenses leading to net and savings rate), giving context for their roles. However, it does not explain the expected format of the expense strings (e.g., category names, amounts), leaving a gap.

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 clearly states it is a household budget tool that shows and plans, and explicitly distinguishes itself by noting it never moves money. The verb 'shows and plans' and the resource 'household budget' are specific, and the phrase 'NEVER moves money' sets it apart from other tools like steward_cost_destroyed.

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 implies usage for budget viewing and planning, and explicitly excludes money movement. However, it does not name specific alternative tools for money movement, so it falls just short of a 5.

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