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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which cover safety. The description adds value by specifying the account requirement and detailing the output content (planned vs actual, remaining, due/overdue payments). This goes beyond the annotations and clarifies what the agent can expect.

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, concise sentence that immediately states the main purpose and key details. It contains no fluff or repetition, and every word adds value. It is appropriately front-loaded.

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?

The tool is simple (one optional param, no output schema, no nested objects). The description covers purpose, prerequisite, and output specifics. It does not mention return format, but given the straightforward nature and existing annotations, it's sufficiently complete for an agent to use it correctly.

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 100% (the single parameter weddingId is described as 'Only needed when the account has more than one wedding'). The description does not add any additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Since the schema fully documents the parameter, a baseline of 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 clearly states the tool gets the couple's Wedyesday budget with specific breakdowns (planned vs actual by category, what is left, payments due/overdue). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_my_wedding_dashboard or get_my_guest_list, which focus on different resources.

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 a prerequisite ('Requires a connected Wedyesday account') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_my_wedding_dashboard, which might also show budget info. There's no mention of when not to use it or which tool to prefer. The purpose is clear, but guidance on tool selection is absent.

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