list_budgets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does add a useful behavioral trait by explaining that filters are combined with AND, which is non-obvious from the schema alone. However, it does not disclose other potentially relevant behaviors such as pagination, sorting, default limit, or the handling of no filters (though 'all' is implied). It is adequate but not rich.

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 consists of two short, front-loaded sentences. The first states the core action and the second adds a critical behavioral detail. No filler, repetition, or unnecessary information. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 low complexity (4 optional parameters, all described in schema, output schema present), the description is mostly complete. It explains the core filtering behavior and the AND conjunction. Minor gaps like sorting or pagination behavior are not mentioned, but for a simple listing tool with a documented output schema, this is acceptable.

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 input schema descriptions cover all 4 parameters with 100% coverage, providing the baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful semantic value beyond the schema by clarifying that all provided filters are combined using AND, which directly impacts how an agent should construct multi-parameter calls. This elevates the score above baseline.

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 action ('List all budgets') with the resource and optional filter scope. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_expenses by naming 'budgets' as the target resource, and the mention of 'optional filters' adds scope beyond a generic listing.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_expenses or compare_budget_vs_expenses. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate. The only usage hint is the implied purpose of listing budgets.

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