Plan Summary

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds context about the month scoping and the category-level highlight focus, but it does not disclose more operational details like response structure or any limitations. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

A single concise sentence communicates the operation, scope, and key output signals with no redundant wording. All content earns its place and the main purpose is front-loaded.

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 simple read-only tool with three optional parameters already fully documented in the schema, the description adequately explains what the summary highlights. The lack of an output schema is partially compensated by the description's mention of overspent and positive-balance categories, though exact return fields are not specified.

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 provides full 100% coverage of all three optional parameters with detailed descriptions and defaults. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the schema carries the burden and the baseline score applies.

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 retrieves a month-specific plan summary and specifies the key outputs (overspent categories and positive-balance categories). It is distinct from obvious siblings like ynab_budget_summary by focusing on plan month and category health, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 when to use it—when a month-level plan summary is needed with attention/positive category highlights. It provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling tool might be more appropriate for other summary needs.

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