Show Budget Modification

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds little behavioral context beyond stating it returns a JSON object. With annotations present, the description could have added value by mentioning response format or error handling, but it does not.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. The inclusion of a documentation link is slightly extraneous but does not significantly inflate length. It could be slightly more streamlined.

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 simplicity of a show operation, the description adequately covers the purpose, required parameters, and provides a link for further API details. It lacks information on potential permission requirements or error responses, but for a basic tool it is sufficient.

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 mentions required parameters (project_id, id) but does not add meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions. No additional semantic value is provided.

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 detailed information on a specified Budget Modification, with a specific verb ('returns') and resource. It also explicitly mentions fetching full details by identifier, distinguishing it from sibling listing tools like 'list_budget_modifications'.

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 basic usage guidance by stating required parameters (project_id, id) and the action 'fetch the full details'. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusion criteria or 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.