get_budget

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

Annotations already provide strong behavioral hints (readOnlyHint: true, idempotentHint: true, destructiveHint: false), so the agent knows this is a safe, repeatable read operation. The description adds minimal value by implying it retrieves 'detailed information,' but doesn't disclose specifics like authentication needs, rate limits, or error conditions beyond what annotations cover.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Get detailed information') without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence serves a purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 tool's low complexity (single parameter, read-only operation) and the presence of rich annotations and an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It states what the tool does, though it lacks usage guidelines and parameter details, which are partially mitigated by the structured data.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for the single parameter 'budget_id', the description doesn't add any semantic details about what a budget_id is, its format, or where to find it. However, since there's only one required parameter and an output schema exists, the baseline is 3—adequate but with clear gaps in parameter explanation.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information for a specific budget'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'list_budgets' or 'get_default_budget', which would require explicit differentiation to earn a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_budgets' (for listing all budgets) or 'get_default_budget' (for retrieving the default budget). There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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