usas_get_agency_budget_function

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so description does not need to state it's read-only. The description adds context about output format (spending by program area with dollar amounts) but omits behavioral traits like pagination (limit parameter) or what happens if fiscalYear is omitted.

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?

The description is a single sentence with an example, perfectly front-loaded. Every word adds value with no fluff.

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?

Given no output schema, the description provides a helpful example of the return structure. However, it lacks details on pagination (limit parameter) and the optional fiscalYear default, which would improve completeness for a complex tool with 3 parameters.

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 has 3 parameters with 33% description coverage. The description adds meaning for toptierCode (links to usas_lookup_agency) and implicitly mentions fiscalYear, but does not explain limit or fiscalYear defaults/format. With low schema coverage, more parameter detail in description would be beneficial.

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 returns a 'budget function breakdown for an agency × fiscal year' with spending by program area, using a concrete example for VA. This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like usas_get_agency_profile or usas_search_agency_spending.

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 usage context (when needing spending by budget function) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like usas_search_agency_spending. No guidance on prerequisites or excluded scenarios.

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