Project budgets and their consumption

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations: it explains unit conventions (minute budgets in hours, cent budgets as currency), that consumption equals revenue for budgeted projects, that budget/remaining/percent are null for unbudgeted projects, and that results are not paged. These are the exact semantic traps an agent could misread from raw numbers.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the core definition comes first, then the sibling disambiguation, then unit/null caveats, then the default. Every clause carries information; nothing is filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of listing returned fields, their units, and null conditions. The one minor gap is the numeric convention for 'percent used' (0-100 vs 0-1), which an agent would still have to infer from the response.

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 baseline is 3. The description restates the default ('Without project_id: all active projects with a budget') and partly duplicates the schema's own parameter description rather than adding new syntax or format details.

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?

Names the exact resource (budget, consumption, remaining, percent used per project) and scopes it to whole project life rather than a period. It also names the sibling `mite_report` as the tool for the period-based case, so the agent can distinguish the two without opening the schemas.

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?

Explicit routing: 'for hours or revenue in a period use `mite_report`'. It also states default behavior when project_id is omitted ('all active projects with a budget'), so there is no ambiguity about when and how to call it.

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