budget_breakdown

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses dedup logic on (fms_id, managing_agency), granularity (line-grain additive), and the effect of agency_role options. It does not mention read-only status or error behaviors, but the provided details are useful.

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: two sentences plus a third for the alternative. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value without waste.

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 5 parameters with no schema descriptions and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, dedup logic, and two parameters. However, it omits details on metric and period, and the output format, leaving it slightly incomplete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains agency and agency_role parameters explicitly, and implies group_by values. However, metric and period parameters are not described, leaving gaps.

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 that the tool returns total budget/spend by managing_agency or category, with dedup logic and optional filtering. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool run_sql, which is for richer queries.

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 mentions when to use this tool (for simple budget breakdowns) and provides an alternative (run_sql for richer cuts). It does not explicitly exclude other sibling tools, but the context is clear.

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