Goals Get Goal Budget Amounts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as output shape, month-range semantics, or what 'budget amounts' includes, but it also does not contradict the annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is concise and readable, though it is also terse enough to leave key details uncovered elsewhere.

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 tool with five parameters, three required, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. An agent would not know the required month format, what the response looks like, or how to disambiguate this from goals_set_goal_budget_amount without opening the schema and inferring heavily from sibling names.

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 only 40%, and the three required parameters (goal_id, start_month, end_month) are undocumented in both the schema and the description. The description does not explain month format, ID format, or how the parameters relate to the returned budget amounts, so it fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('goal budget amounts'), clearly marking this as a read operation. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling goals_set_goal_budget_amount, but the get/set contrast and the tool name make the distinction fairly apparent.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of when not to use it. The get/set naming implies a read context, but the description does not explicitly route the agent toward or away from any sibling tool.

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