search_verified_budget_totals

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

Annotations already declare a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, closed-world). The description adds non-obvious behavioral context: results carry sources and limitations, and a no-hit result means missing coverage rather than zero budget. That negative-result semantics is exactly the kind of thing annotations cannot convey.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the verb and scope, then caveats, then the sibling disambiguation. No filler, though the opening noun phrase is dense enough to require a second read.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by noting sources and limitations accompany results. Scope, negative-result meaning, and sibling disambiguation are covered; only parameter-level behavior is left thin.

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 compensate for three undocumented parameters (limit, offset, institution). It only indirectly hints at the institution domain via '245 covered institutions' and says nothing about pagination semantics for limit/offset, leaving the schema's numeric bounds to do all the work.

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?

States a specific verb (Search) plus a precisely bounded resource: reconciled 2026 original-budget general-account municipal expenditure totals for 245 institutions. It also explicitly contrasts itself with the indexed business-level expenditure search, so an agent can separate it from siblings like search_budget_projects without opening schemas.

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?

Gives clear when-not guidance: municipality totals are not individual project budgets, benefits, or actual spending, and the indexed business-level search is a separate tool. It does not name that sibling explicitly (only describes it), so it falls just short of a 5, but the exclusion signals are strong.

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