Get YNAB Month Category

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds the scoping constraint ('one exact category for one exact month') but no additional behavioral context such as caching, staleness, rate limits, or response characteristics. This is acceptable given the annotations but adds minimal value.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose without any filler. It is front-loaded and perfectly sized for the simplicity of the operation.

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?

With 4 parameters, no output schema, and a set of sibling tools, the description is under-specified. It does not explain the return value, how this tool differs from ynab_list_categories in practical terms, or the meaning of refresh beyond the schema. The minimal wording leaves the agent with gaps in understanding when to invoke this tool and what to expect in the response.

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 50%: plan_id and refresh have descriptions, while month and category_id do not. The description indirectly clarifies that month refers to a YNAB plan month and category_id refers to a category, but it does not provide format details beyond the schema's regex pattern for month or explain the relationship between category_id and the plan. The description adds some context but fails to fully compensate for the undocumented required parameters.

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 action ('Get'), the resource ('category'), and the scope ('one exact category for one exact YNAB plan month'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ynab_list_categories, which would list multiple categories. The use of 'exact' reinforces the single-item retrieval purpose.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ynab_list_categories or ynab_get_budget_snapshot. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or selection criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and description.

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