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

Annotations already signal a mutating, non-read-only, non-idempotent operation, and the description aligns by saying 'Cria'. It adds context about the default activity_type and the preference for category names. However, it doesn't disclose possible side effects like duplicate handling or whether an existing budget for the same category/period is replaced.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every phrase adds useful guidance. There is no redundant or filler text.

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 description covers the core purpose and the two most likely ambiguities (category name vs id and expense vs income). However, year/month remain undocumented, there is no output schema to clarify the response, and it doesn't state whether the category must already exist. It is adequate but has clear gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It clarifies that category should be a category NAME and that activity_type accepts 'earning' for income goals, defaulting otherwise to expense. 'Limite de gastos' implies amount is the spending limit. But it does not explain year/month semantics, period defaults, or the full set of accepted activity_type values.

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 states the specific action (Cria = creates) and resource (spending limit/budget for a category), and adds the useful expense-vs-earning distinction. It differentiates at a glance from update/delete/list/clone budget tools, though it doesn't name those alternatives explicitly.

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 tool's use is implied by 'Cria um limite de gastos' and by the sibling names, but there is no explicit guidance about when to choose create_budget over update_budget or clone_budgets. It does provide useful context about defaulting to expense and using activity_type 'earning' for revenue goals.

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