budget_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It thoroughly discloses read-only behavior, return structure (including error case), and explains that agent_id is for audit only and does not filter results.

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 packed with useful information but is slightly verbose. It is well-structured with clear sentences, but some rephrasing could improve conciseness without losing content.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, return format, error case, and usage guidance. No gaps remain.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100% and the parameter description is already present, the description adds critical nuance: 'agent_id is recorded in the audit log only — it does not filter results.' This goes beyond the schema's description and prevents potential misuse.

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 a read-only snapshot of the global FederatedBudget with specific fields (ceiling, spent, remaining, per-agent breakdown). It distinguishes itself from siblings like budget_spend and budget_get_log by explicitly naming them as alternatives.

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 explicitly advises calling this before budget_spend to check available capacity and suggests budget_get_log for a full history. It also clarifies that it never modifies state, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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