get_budget_summary

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

The description adds value beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by specifying the underlying endpoint (v2 GET /summary) and mentioning that include_occurrences returns a per-period breakdown. It does not contradict the annotation, and while it doesn't discuss rate limits or auth, the read-only nature is already indicated.

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 very concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence contributes useful information, with no redundant or wasted words.

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 tool's complexity (7 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the main functionality and hints at return structure via field listings. However, it could be more complete by explaining the response format (e.g., top-level structure). Since schema descriptions are detailed, this is a minor gap.

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 schema already provides descriptions for all 7 parameters (100% coverage). The description adds meaning for include_occurrences ('per-period breakdown matching the account's budget periodicity'), which goes beyond the schema. This extra context justifies a score above the baseline 3.

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's purpose: 'Get a summary of the user's budget for a specified date range.' It lists the specific fields returned (e.g., other_activity, recurring_activity) and mentions optional behavior (include_occurrences). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_budget_settings or upsert_budget.

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 clear context by naming the endpoint and specifying input parameters, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use get_budget_summary vs. get_budget_settings). However, the purpose is unambiguous enough that an agent can infer usage.

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