List Budget Modifications

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior. The description adds pagination details and return format, which is useful but expected for a list endpoint. No contradictions with annotations.

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 adequately structured but somewhat verbose, including a documentation link and API endpoint details that could be considered extraneous. It efficiently communicates the core purpose but could be trimmed for brevity.

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 absence of an output schema, the description should describe the structure of the returned budget records. It only mentions 'Budget records' without detailing fields, leaving the agent without key information for processing 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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description mentions required project_id and pagination parameters, but adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 it returns a list of budget modifications for a project, with specific use cases like pagination and ID lookup. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from other budget list tools like list_budget_views or list_budget_details, so a 5 is not warranted.

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 gives implied usage scenarios ('Use this to enumerate Budget records when you need a paginated overview, to find IDs, or to filter by query parameters'), but it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives, making it adequate but not exemplary.

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