Budget Analysis & Optimization

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint false, and idempotentHint true, so the read-only nature is clear. The description adds value by detailing the output structure (goal, current_allocation, recommendations, projected_lift) and hints at the tool's analytical capability beyond simple aggregation.

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?

A single, information-dense paragraph with no fluff. Each sentence adds value: input, output structure, and sibling pairing. Front-loaded with the core action.

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 moderate complexity (2 optional params, no output schema), the description covers inputs and outputs thoroughly. The only minor gap is lack of examples for the recommendation structure, but the description enumerates fields adequately.

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 coverage is 50% but both parameters are documented in the schema with enums. The description adds context for optimization_goal values and mentions the platform filter's optionality, though the schema already provides the list. For a 2-param tool, this is sufficient.

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 verb 'Analyze' and the resource 'current ad budget', producing 'actionable reallocation recommendations'. It distinguishes itself from sibling 'budget_reallocate' by pairing them together, making the purpose unmistakable.

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?

Explicitly mentions input parameters (optimization_goal, platform filter) and provides a direct pointer to sibling tool 'budget_reallocate' for execution. This gives clear when-to-use and when-to-next guidance.

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