irreversible_budget_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Read-only,' which is a key behavioral trait, and frames the tool as an audit ledger with no indication of side effects. It does not go deeper into permissions or data freshness, but for a read-only report this is reasonable.

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 focused sentence that front-loads the tool's identity as an audit view. The explanatory clause adds useful intent without bloating the length, though the quoted metaphor is slightly ornamental.

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 has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain both behavior and return value. It explains the report's subject well but omits what the output looks like and what the optional 'budget' parameter does. An agent could call it with defaults but could not confidently customize the call.

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 never explains the 'budget' parameter. The schema only shows a number with default 1, leaving the agent to guess what the parameter controls. The description's 'budget' refers to the report's subject, not the parameter's meaning.

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 identifies the tool as an 'Audit view of the per-source lifetime IRREVERSIBLE-influence budget' and explains what it tracks: how much durable pull each source has spent against its cap. The verb 'audit' and specific resource name distinguish it from generic report tools, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 when to use this tool: when an audit view of per-source irreversible-influence budget spend is needed. However, it gives no explicit exclusions or alternatives, such as when to choose governance_report or influence_gate_report instead.

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