get_budgets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions inclusion of v2 goals when present, which adds transparency. However, it does not state that the operation is read-only, any required permissions, rate limits, or how it behaves with no data.

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 concise sentences with no filler. Front-loads the core purpose and includes a valuable additional detail about v2 goals. Efficient and clear.

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 tool with no annotations and zero parameter descriptions, the description leaves many gaps. It does not explain budget periods, mandatory inputs, or what the output contains (though an output schema exists). The agent likely needs more context to use this tool reliably.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage. The description hints at date range parameters but does not specify formats, constraints, or how the date range interacts with budget periods. Minimal added meaning beyond the schema.

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 resource (budgets) and purpose (plan vs. actuals for a date range). It adds a specific detail about v2 goals, which helps distinguish from general financial reports. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_cash_flow_summary or set_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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as get_cash_flow or set_budget. There is no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or when not to use. The context is implied but not explicit.

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