get_budget_status

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only and non-destructive; the description adds meaningful behavioral context by explaining that expired or cancelled orders automatically release their reservations. This goes beyond the structured annotations and clarifies state dynamics.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core data elements, and the second adds a useful behavioral rule; every sentence contributes value.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only query tool with an output schema already present, the description sufficiently covers the returned ledger fields and the reservation-release behavior. No essential calling context is missing.

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?

The tool has zero input parameters, so schema coverage is complete and there is no parameter ambiguity to resolve. The description therefore does not need to compensate for missing parameter information.

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 identifies the resource (TR_BUDGET_EUR ledger) and enumerates the specific data it exposes: committed, remaining, units bought, and order fee. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_cash or get_portfolio, which serve different financial views.

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 implies the tool is for checking this agent's own budget ledger, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over siblings like get_cash or get_account_status, nor does it mention exclusions or alternative tool selection criteria.

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