Get plan month

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful scope context by naming the returned fields and flagging that only *visible* categories appear, which hints at permission-based filtering. It does not mention pagination despite limit/offset parameters, which is a real behavioral gap for a tool returning a category list.

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 front-loaded sentence with a specific verb and a compact field list; every clause conveys returnable data rather than filler. No redundancy with the title beyond the unavoidable tool name.

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 an output schema present and all three parameters fully documented, the description only needs to convey scope, which it does well by listing the month's components. The one omission is that paginated category results exist but go unmentioned in the description.

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 100% and the month parameter is already fully documented with enum meanings and date format, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about which parameter controls the category pagination or how "current" resolves. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 one month of the plan") and enumerates the exact payload: income, assigned, activity, Ready to Assign, age of money, and per-category amounts. The scoping to a single month implicitly separates it from get_plan and list_plan_months, though no sibling is named outright.

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 statement of when to call this versus get_plan (whole-plan view), list_plan_months (month inventory), or get_month_category (single category detail), all of which appear in the sibling list. The use case is inferable from the description but never stated, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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