get_budget

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by revealing that the tool returns 'current utilization' and accepts partial case-insensitive name matching. It does not contradict annotations. A 4 is given because it adds meaningful context without needing to reiterate 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary use case, followed by alternative tool exclusions. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy. It is structured for quick scanning by an AI agent.

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 has only two simple parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description provides sufficient context. It explains parameter behavior and differentiates from related tools. Minor gap: does not describe the return format, but that is acceptable without an output schema.

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 schema coverage at 100%, baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that 'name' is for partial case-insensitive matching when ID is unknown, and 'id' for direct retrieval. This clarifies parameter usage beyond the schema's minimal descriptions.

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's purpose: viewing details and current utilization of a specific budget. It specifies the action ('view'), resource ('budget'), and inputs (ID or partial name). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly mentioning when not to use it (list_budgets, run_query).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'when the user wants to view the details and current utilization of a specific budget.' It also gives alternatives for related tasks: list_budgets for listing all budgets, run_query for cost analysis. This clearly sets usage boundaries.

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