Get Account Budget

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does real work: it discloses that the limit is account-wide rather than per campaign, and quantifies the aggregation (3 campaigns x 20 = 60 attempts/day), which changes how an agent interprets the number. It does not cover auth requirements, rate limits, or failure modes, but for a read tool whose return shape is documented by an output schema, that is a minor gap.

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 first sentence front-loads the purpose; the second paragraph justifies the number's meaning and the third states when to call. Every sentence earns its place, though the aggregation example is slightly more elaborate than strictly necessary.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool with an output schema covering return values, the description supplies what is missing: what the number means, how it is computed, and when it matters. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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, and it only implies the parameter by saying 'one account'. The single parameter is account_id and self-evident, so the practical risk is low, but no format, source, or acquisition guidance is added.

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 with explicit scope: the remaining daily send budget for one account, aggregated across all campaigns. This clearly separates it from siblings like get_account_health (health, not budget) and set_daily_limits (mutation of limits, not a read of remaining budget).

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?

Gives concrete triggers: call before proposing any volume, and before launching a campaign on an account that already has one running. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or a when-not-to-use case, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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