get_budget_utilization

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description does not contradict that. It adds some behavioral context by noting per-campaign utilization and the optional campaign filter, but it does not describe aggregation, response shape, or any open-world output behavior despite openWorldHint=true.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the Args block is scannable. The second sentence is slightly redundant with the first, but the overall length is appropriate and the description stays focused.

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?

For a read-only reporting tool with only three parameters, the description covers the invocation essentials: customer_id, date range, and optional campaign filter. It lacks an explicit return-value description, but 'shows how much of each campaign's budget has been utilized' gives a serviceable picture of the output.

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 0%, so the description must carry the documentation burden. It does define all three parameters, gives the date_range format with an example, and marks campaign_id as optional. It could be stronger by listing the possible predefined date range values.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get budget vs actual spend for campaigns.' The second sentence clarifies the outcome, showing per-campaign budget utilization. This clearly distinguishes the tool from budget-definition tools like list_budgets and from general performance-report siblings.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of siblings such as list_budgets or get_campaign_performance, nor does it name any alternatives. The use case is implied by 'budget vs actual spend,' but an agent must infer the appropriate context from the meaning alone.

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