ynab_get_budget

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

Annotations indicate readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds further behavioral details: mentions the return fields explicitly and describes an error case. No contradictions.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, Examples, Errors), front-loaded with the one-line purpose. Every sentence adds value and is concise.

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 output schema exists, the description still provides complete context: input, output, error handling, and example. For a simple get tool, it covers all necessary information.

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, the description compensates fully: it explains both parameters (budget_id as UUID, response_format with enum and default) and adds context beyond 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?

The description clearly states 'Get summary information for a specific YNAB budget', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like ynab_list_budgets by focusing on a single budget. The title annotation reinforces this.

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 an example linking to ynab_list_budgets and mentions error handling. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives, though the name and sibling context make it clear.

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