budget_forecast

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a verdict ('ok'/'at_risk'/'balance_unknown'), projected minimum balance, and when at risk the date and shortfall. It implies read-only behavior (forecasting) and does not mention side effects. Adding an explicit statement about non-modification would make it a 5.

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 concise (two short sentences plus a line about output) and front-loads the core purpose. It avoids unnecessary words. However, it mixes format defaults and output details without clear separation, slightly reducing structure.

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 the presence of an output schema and the tool's moderate complexity, the description covers purpose, parameter defaults/format, and output fields (verdicts, balances, shortfalls). Missing elements include error conditions, rate limits, or authentication info, but these are not critical for basic usage.

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%, so the description compensates by explaining the date format (YYYY-MM-DD) and default values for 'as_of' and 'through'. However, it does not explain the semantic meaning of the parameters (e.g., 'as_of' as the start of the forecast window). This is adequate but leaves room for improvement.

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 does 'per-envelope sufficiency over a window' to check if each envelope will cover its upcoming bills. This specific verb-resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like 'account_balances' (current balances) and 'spending_summary' (historical 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 explains date format and defaults ('as_of' defaults to today, 'through' to 60 days later) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The context is clear for basic use but lacks exclusions or alternative directions.

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