get_year_budget

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds useful context about carryover expiry and implies a read-only affordability check, but it does not state side effects, permissions, or mutation behavior. The output schema covers return values, reducing the remaining gap.

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?

Two brief sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does and then when to use it. There is no filler, and the structure is easy to parse.

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?

The description covers purpose and usage, and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. However, for a tool requiring a nested ledger object with 0% schema description coverage, the invocation remains ambiguous because the main input is not described.

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 explain the two required parameters. It only hints at the year parameter ('for a year') and gives no explanation of the required ledger object or its nested contents, leaving the main input undocumented.

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 it compares planned versus available leave for a year, including carryover expiry. It is more specific than the name alone, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like calculate_leave_cost or check_ledger.

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?

It gives clear usage context: answer whether the plan is affordable and call it after every change. This tells the agent when to invoke it, though it names no alternatives or when-not conditions.

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