Suggest Budget Categories

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds useful context about the output structure (Needs/Wants/Savings grouping) and that suggestions include 'typical allocation percentages,' which isn't in annotations. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or detailed behavioral traits.

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 two sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose and output structure, the second provides usage guidelines. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with essential information.

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 moderate complexity (6 parameters, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, and output grouping, but lacks details on return format or error handling. However, with annotations providing safety context, it's sufficient for an AI agent to use effectively.

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%, so the schema fully documents all 6 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, mentioning 'based on a user's life situation' which aligns with the life_situation parameter but doesn't provide additional semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('suggests personalized budget categories') and resources ('based on a user's life situation'), including the output structure ('grouped into Needs, Wants, and Savings'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on category suggestions rather than analysis, auditing, or calculation.

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 states when to use this tool: 'Use this when someone wants to know what budget categories they should have or how to organize their expenses.' This provides clear context for selection versus alternatives like analyze_budget or create_budget_plan.

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