budget_get_log

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

With no annotations, the description states 'Read-only — never modifies budget state', which is a clear behavioral disclosure. It also describes success and error return shapes. Missing details like authentication requirements, but for a simple read-only log tool, it is sufficiently transparent.

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 3-4 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by read-only nature, return shapes, and usage guidance. Every sentence adds value, no filler. Well-structured and concise.

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 tool's simplicity and absence of output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior (read-only), return format (both success and error), parameter usage, and alternative sibling tool. It is complete for its complexity.

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 100% (both parameters have descriptions). The description adds context for limit (default 50 and usage), but for agent_id it only reiterates the schema description ('Calling agent identifier') without clarifying whether it filters results or just identifies the caller. The added value is modest, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Return a chronological list of all token spend transactions' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool budget_status by mentioning 'prefer budget_status for a summary view', which is a clear differentiation.

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 provides explicit context by stating 'prefer budget_status for a summary view' and 'Useful for auditing which agents consumed the most tokens'. It also gives guidance on the limit parameter with default value. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the alternative is clear.

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