budget_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only report and mentions the output concepts (spend and remaining cap), but it does not explain month defaults, response format, error behavior, or access requirements.

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 one concise sentence with no filler, front-loading the key action and subject. It is easy to parse, though the brevity contributes to missing details elsewhere.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description needs to explain return values and behavior more fully. It does not describe what the report looks like, what happens if no month is provided, or any edge cases, leaving the agent under-informed.

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%, so the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. It hints that tenant_id identifies the tenant and month selects the month, but it does not clarify formats, the optionality of month, or the exact meaning of 'remaining cap'.

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 uses a specific verb ('Report') and a clear resource ('a tenant's monthly spend and remaining cap'), so an agent can understand the core function. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools, but the resource is distinct enough from 'recommend' and 'record_feedback'.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools, nor any context about prerequisites or typical scenarios. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer when it should be invoked.

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