get_month_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It partially compensates by disclosing the exact data points returned (income, budgeted, spent, to-assign, age of money), implying a read-only snapshot. However, it says nothing about permissions, side effects, or whether figures are live vs cached.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and its return fields are stated immediately with zero redundancy.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned metrics, so an agent knows what it will receive. The main remaining gap is the absence of any routing guidance versus the overlapping summary-style siblings.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both 'month' (with 'current' / YYYY-MM-01 semantics) and 'budget_id' ('last-used'). The description adds no parameter syntax or format detail beyond that, 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?

Specific verb ('Gets') plus a clearly named resource ('financial snapshot for a budget month'), and it enumerates the fields returned (income, total budgeted, total spent, money left to assign, age of money). It is easy to distinguish from list_* siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the overlapping get_ready_to_assign (which covers 'money left to assign').

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 when-to-use guidance, no stated prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as get_ready_to_assign or spending_by_category. The agent must infer usage purely from the resource name.

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