List Budget Detail Filter Options

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, etc. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations, such as the special structure when column_id is 'biller' (objects with type and value fields). No contradictions with annotations. The bar is lowered by annotations, and the description adds useful detail, earning a 4.

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 moderately concise but packed with useful information. It starts with the core purpose, followed by a behavioral note, usage guidance, return type, and required parameters. Each sentence adds value. Slightly verbose but well-structured; a score of 4 is appropriate.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description covers the return type, pagination implication (though page/per_page are in schema), and use cases. It lacks details on error handling or authentication, but these are often external. For this context, it is fairly complete, scoring a 4.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds significant meaning for the 'column_id' parameter by detailing the special case for 'biller' (nested object structure). This extra context improves parameter understanding, justifying a score of 4.

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's function: 'Returns a list of valid filter options when given a specific filter type.' It specifies the resource (budget detail filter options) and the verb (list/return). The name and description align, and no sibling tool duplicates this purpose, distinguishing it effectively.

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 explicitly advises when to use the tool: 'Use this to enumerate Budget records when you need a paginated overview, to find IDs, or to filter by query parameters.' This provides clear context, but it does not mention when not to use it or list alternatives. A score of 4 reflects good guidance without exclusion criteria.

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