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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real value by listing the returned fields, which matters because there is no output schema. It does not mention pagination, ordering, or whether archived plans are included by default, which are the remaining behavioral gaps.

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 short sentences with no filler: purpose, return shape, then workflow routing, front-loaded in that order. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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 filtered list tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns (compensating for the missing output schema), how to scope results via parameters, and when to call it relative to get_budget_vs_actual. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 both year and status documented including enum values and the 'omit for all' default, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no syntax or semantics beyond that, which is the expected baseline rather than a deficiency.

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 verb and resource ('List all budget plans for the tenant') and enumerates the returned fields (id, name, year, version, status, type). It also names the downstream sibling get_budget_vs_actual, so the agent can distinguish this retrieval step from the comparison step without opening a schema.

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?

Gives explicit sequencing guidance ('Call this first before get_budget_vs_actual to find the plan_id'), which is exactly the kind of workflow context an agent needs. It stops short of a full when/when-not statement (e.g. no guidance on when to skip listing entirely or how it relates to search-like siblings), so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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