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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds real value by stating 'limits cannot be changed', which prevents an agent from attempting to modify the budget. It also clarifies the session scoping, though it says nothing about what happens when the budget is exhausted or who the 'authenticated user' is.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the key constraint. No filler or repetition.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the mutation-impossibility caveat and session scope, leaving only minor gaps around budget-exhaustion semantics.

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% and the single optional context_id is fully documented in the schema, so the description's 'no parameters required' only restates the required-count. It neither explains why context_id exists nor when to pass it, adding essentially nothing beyond the schema.

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 ('show the authenticated user's current investigation budget, usage and reset time') and scopes it to the Cursor session. It never references the closest sibling, ops_my_usage, so an agent must infer the distinction between 'budget' and general usage.

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?

'Informational only' and 'no parameters required' imply a read-oriented, zero-setup call, which is useful. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of ops_my_usage as the alternative, so selection between the two relies on inference from the names alone.

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