List budget categories

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds a useful behavioral detail: hidden categories are excluded unless includeHidden is true. However, it does not describe pagination, rate limits, or other runtime behavior. With annotations covering safety, this is an adequate but not rich behavioral disclosure.

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 sentences, each earning its place: first states what is listed and the fields returned, second gives usage context, third states the default filtering behavior. The information is front-loaded with the core purpose, then context, then a detail. No waste.

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 list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, and the main behavioral detail. It omits discussion of return format (but no output schema exists) or edge cases like empty results, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the parameter's meaning is already fully documented. The description adds the default behavior context ('Hidden categories are excluded unless includeHidden is true'), which reinforces and slightly clarifies the schema. It does not add syntax or format details, but the parameter is simple and well-covered by the schema.

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+resource ('List every budget category') and specifies the returned fields (id, name, containing group). It distinguishes itself from sibling list tools like list_category_groups and list_accounts because the description makes the resource explicit.

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?

Clearly states the context in which this tool should be called first: 'Categories are addressed by id by the budgeting and rule tools, so this is usually the first call when working with either.' This provides strong usage guidance by naming downstream tools that depend on the result. It does not provide explicit exclusions, but the guidance is clear.

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