athena_budget_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions what is summarized but does not disclose side effects, required permissions, return format, or whether it is a read-only operation. The phrase about automatically metered wall time adds a hint of behavior but is not sufficiently transparent.

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 concise sentence and is front-loaded with the core verb. It avoids unnecessary words, though the density of jargon slightly harms readability, keeping it from a perfect score.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, yet the description is extremely brief. It does not explain the return value, how limit/scope affect results, or what 'persistent resource observations' concretely means, leaving significant gaps for an agent to infer.

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 0%, and the description does not mention the 'limit' or 'scope' parameters at all. The schema provides only basic types and constraints, so the description adds no additional meaning to help an agent use these parameters correctly.

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 'Summarize' and identifies the resource as persistent resource observations plus metered wall time, which distinguishes it from sibling record/schedule tools. However, 'persistent resource observations' is somewhat vague and the phrase 'automatically metered MCP tool-call wall time' is jargon-heavy, preventing a perfect score.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as athena_budget_record or athena_budget_schedule. The name implies a summary role, but there are no stated use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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