List Of Budget Change Histories

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. The description adds value by explaining the paginated JSON array return, pagination metadata, and the endpoint details. No contradictions, and the description provides additional behavioral context beyond 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 concise with 4 sentences, each serving a clear purpose: purpose, usage, return/pagination details, required params. Front-loaded with core functionality.

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 complexity (5 params, no output schema) and annotations, the description explains pagination and required params but does not describe the segments parameter or the structure of returned Budget records. It mentions filtering but lacks detail. Schema covers segments, but description could be more 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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining how page and per_page control pagination and that response includes metadata. This adds value beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 the list of Budget Change Histories for a given project, with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on budget change histories specifically, and provides usage context for enumeration, ID finding, and filtering.

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 clear usage scenarios: 'when you need a paginated overview, to find IDs, or to filter by query parameters.' It also notes required parameters, but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use.

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