Get Budget

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the period-scoping behavior (retrieving for a specific period) which is beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't disclose how missing endMonth behaves or what the return structure is, so it adds only modest context.

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 sentence with no filler. It directly states the action and scope. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately short for a simple read operation.

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 there is no output schema, the description should at least hint at what is returned (e.g., budget total, breakdown, etc.) to help the agent set expectations. It only says 'Retrieve budget' without specifying the return shape or any response fields. The parameter breakDownByCategory implies some breakdown capability, but the description does not mention it. This is a meaningful gap for a read-only tool.

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 100%, so all three parameters (startMonth, endMonth, breakDownByCategory) are documented in the schema with formats and defaults. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the generic 'specific period', which does not go beyond what the schema already conveys. Baseline 3 applies given full schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('budget') with a scope ('for a specific period'). It is clear enough to distinguish from the sibling 'setBudget' (write operation) though it doesn't name it explicitly. Slight lack of detail on what 'budget' means or what the response contains prevents 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like setBudget or getTransactions. The description only states what it does, not when it is appropriate or when to choose a different tool. The sibling setBudget exists but is not referenced, leaving the agent to infer the read/write distinction.

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