get_budget

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the data is 'read directly from Odoo, never recomputed here', which is a useful behavioral trait indicating a read-only, source-aware operation. However, it omits other relevant details like error handling, return format, or permission requirements, so it provides only partial 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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Full detail of one budget') and then expands with specific content and a behavioral note. Every part adds value, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description does a good job of summarizing the return content by mentioning 'every BOQ line with its planned/actual/ETC/EAC figures'. However, it does not address how the budget is identified in practice or what happens if the budget does not exist, leaving some contextual 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate by explaining the budget_id parameter. The schema only provides 'Budget Id' with an integer type, which is self-explanatory, but the description adds no extra context about the meaning, format, or source of the ID. Since the description must compensate for low coverage and does not, the score is low.

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 returns 'Full detail of one budget, including every BOQ line with its planned/actual/ETC/EAC figures', which is a specific verb+resource+scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_budgets (which lists budgets) and budget_vs_actual (which compares budgets), by focusing on a single budget's full detail.

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 when a complete budget detail is needed, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. No guidance is given on conditions where other tools would be more appropriate, so usage context is only implied.

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