List Budget Detail Columns

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond these: the relationship between column IDs and List Budget Details API keys, pagination controls (page, per_page) and remaining pages reporting, and common failure modes (401, 403, 404) with meanings. This is useful and non-redundant, though it doesn't cover every potential edge case.

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?

The description is a single focused paragraph but well-structured: it opens with the core purpose, then adds usage context, parameter guidance, behavioral notes on pagination and errors, and ends with API endpoint reference. Every sentence contributes unique information without redundancy, making it appropriately concise yet complete.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage scenario, prerequisite resolution, pagination, return format indication, error handling, and API reference. It provides a complete picture for an AI agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, even without seeing sibling tool definitions in detail.

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 all parameters. The description adds context by explicitly naming the required parameters (budget_view_id, project_id) and clarifying that budget_view_id must be resolved first, and that page/per_page control pagination. This goes slightly beyond the schema by linking parameter purpose to usage flow.

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 clearly states the tool returns a list of columns relevant to a Budget View for a Budget Detail Report. It uses a specific verb ('Return a list of') and resource ('budget detail columns'), and it distinguishes this tool from siblings by noting the ID field appears as keys in List Budget Details API rows, which is a unique and helpful purpose statement.

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?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: to discover budget detail columns or to look up an id before calling other tools. It also states a prerequisite (budget_view_id must identify an existing parent record, resolve it with the matching list tool first) and explains pagination behavior. This clearly differentiates it from alternatives and gives actionable usage context.

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