get_category_targets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the filtering rule (target-less categories are dropped) and implies a read-only operation, but says nothing about authentication/budget-access requirements, pagination, or what happens when no categories have targets.

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 tight sentence that front-loads what is returned and closes with the exclusion rule. No filler, nothing redundant with the schema or annotations.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly enumerates the return fields (amount, type, due date, progress) and the scoping rule. The only gap is behavioral detail such as failure modes or budget-access requirements for an otherwise simple single-parameter read tool.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema coverage is 100%, with the budget_id/'last-used' semantics fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, which is the correct baseline when the schema does the work.

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 specific verb (lists) and resource (categories with a target set) and enumerates the returned data (amount, type, due date, progress). The clause 'Categories without a target are omitted' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling list_categories, which returns all 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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the read path for targets, contrasting with the write path set_category_target. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no mention of list_categories as the alternative for unfiltered category listing.

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