budget_change

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the 'as-of caveat' in results and explains the behavior of agency_role parameter. However, it does not mention auth requirements, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only or destructive. The description adds some behavioral context but leaves gaps.

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 two sentences long, with the core purpose front-loaded. Each sentence provides useful information without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 no output schema, 5 parameters, and 0% schema coverage, the description should cover return format, period format, metric options, and any caveats. It mentions an 'as-of caveat' but doesn't specify the result structure. Key details about parameters like metric and period formatting are missing, making the description incomplete for precise invocation.

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 the format for target ('agency:DEP' or 'fms:ABC') and the meaning of agency_role. However, it does not describe the exact format for from_period and to_period, or the allowed values for metric. The description adds some meaning beyond the schema but not enough to fully clarify all parameters.

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 calculates change in budget/spend between two periods for an agency or FMS line, with specific examples ('agency:DEP', 'fms:ABC'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like budget_breakdown or get_project_budget, which might also relate to budget data.

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 indicates when to use the tool (for agency or FMS line targets) and mentions the agency_role parameter, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like budget_breakdown or schedule_changes, which are listed as siblings.

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