accelo_get_object_budget

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 usefully enumerates what is returned (billable/nonbillable time, charged amounts, service and material costs, remaining budget), effectively compensating for the absent output schema, but says nothing about permissions, errors, or read-only guarantees.

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?

Two short paragraphs plus an Args block; the purpose sentence is front-loaded and the return summary earns its place. Slight redundancy between the title-like first line and the rest, but efficient overall.

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 simple two-parameter lookup with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it fetches, what data comes back, and the parameter meaning. Missing error/auth context and 'fields' detail keep it from being fully complete.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does document both params (id = Object Budget ID, fields = additional fields to return), which is better than nothing, but 'fields' gives no format or example of accepted values, leaving the agent guessing.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get a single object budget by ID'), which cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling accelo_list_object_budgets. It stops short of explicitly naming sibling alternatives, but the singular/plural distinction is evident from the name and text.

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 implied: this is the detail-fetch counterpart requiring a known budget ID, versus the list tool. However, the description never states when to prefer it over list_object_budgets or any precondition such as needing a valid ID or prior lookup.

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