budget_schedules

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a non-mutating read, so the bar is lower. The phrase "and their IDs" adds a small amount of value about what comes back, but there is no indication of ordering, filtering, pagination, or what a schedule record contains.

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?

A single short sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. It is perhaps too terse to earn a 5, since brevity here comes at the cost of differentiation from the singular sibling.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the basics but omits anything about the shape or count of results and does not resolve the `budget_schedules` versus `budget_schedule` overlap. Adequate minimum, but an agent could still pick the wrong sibling.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline is 4 by rule. Schema coverage is 100% and the empty property set matches the 'list everything' framing.

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 gives a specific verb-plus-resource pairing ("List recurring credit schedules") and even indicates the payload includes IDs, so an agent knows exactly what this returns. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the near-identically named sibling `budget_schedule`, leaving ambiguity about which one enumerates versus manages a schedule.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus `budget_schedule`, `budget_settle`, or `budget_status`, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the sibling names alone.

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