get_budget

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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds useful context by disclosing the returned fields (total budgeted, actual cost, paid, plus all budget items). With no output schema, that enumeration is the only signal about what comes back. It omits pagination/scoping behavior, keeping it from a 5.

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 sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and then lists the payload contents. Every clause earns its place with no repetition of the name or filler.

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 no-param, read-only tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, listing the returned fields closes the main information gap. It does not clarify aggregation scope (e.g., whether figures are per-wedding or whether items are paginated), which is the one remaining ambiguity.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to document and the schema is trivially complete. Baseline 4 applies; the description adds no parameter meaning because none exists.

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 and resource ("Get the wedding budget summary") and enumerates what it contains (total budgeted, actual cost, paid, budget items), which clearly separates it from mutation siblings like update_budget_item and from get_wedding_dashboard. It never explicitly names a sibling to disambiguate against, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied — an agent can infer this is the read path for budget data, with update_budget_item as the write counterpart. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no guidance on how it relates to get_wedding_dashboard (which may also surface budget info), and no exclusions.

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