list_months

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explains that budget_id is optional and defaults to the user's default budget, but it does not mention any potential behaviors like pagination, rate limits, or whether the tool is read-only (though it is likely safe). The description is adequate but lacks depth.

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 and well-structured. The first line gives the main purpose, followed by a bullet-like list of return fields, then the Args section. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is appropriately front-loaded.

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 simplicity (one optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the return fields and parameter behavior. However, it could mention any sorting or filtering options to be completely exhaustive, but it is not necessary 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining that budget_id is optional and defaults to the default budget if not provided. This provides semantic guidance beyond the schema's type definition.

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 what the tool does: 'List all budget months with summary figures.' It specifies the verb (list) and resource (budget months), and lists the return fields (income, budgeted, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_month (single month) or list_accounts.

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 basic usage guidance by explaining the optional budget_id parameter and its default behavior. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., get_month for a specific month), nor does it mention any prerequisites or contextual scenarios.

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