budget_health_check

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It is transparent about what the digest contains, which is genuinely useful given there is no output schema, but it says nothing about whether the call is read-only, how expensive an aggregate query is, or any auth/rate considerations. 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?

A single tightly constructed sentence with the deliverable front-loaded and the differential clause at the end. No wasted words, and the em-dash list efficiently enumerates the contents.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must convey what comes back; it enumerates the return contents adequately. It is fully sufficient for a one-parameter read aggregator, though it stops short of describing formatting or empty-state behavior.

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?

Single optional budget_id parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including the 'last-used' default semantics. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a concrete deliverable (an at-a-glance budget health digest) and enumerates exactly what it aggregates: Ready to Assign, age of money, overspent categories, uncategorized/unapproved counts. The contrast 'instead of checking each separately' cleanly positions it against the sibling tools like get_ready_to_assign and list_overspent_categories.

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?

'Instead of checking each separately' implies when to reach for this composite tool over the granular siblings, giving clear usage context. It does not, however, state when NOT to use it (e.g., when you need the detail of one specific metric), so no explicit exclusions or named alternatives.

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