get_budget_impact

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It describes the output content but does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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, front-loading the purpose and then detailing outputs and arguments. Each sentence adds value, and there is no redundant information.

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 a simple single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and its parameter. It does not mention pagination or error handling, but for this use case, it is sufficiently complete.

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 sole parameter 'year' has a default and is described with examples ('2025', '2024', '2023'), clarifying the expected format. With 0% schema description coverage, this adds necessary context, though it could explicitly state it refers to the fiscal year.

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 retrieves 'Historical Union Budget impact by year' and lists specific outputs (key announcements, sector winners/losers, market reaction). It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'analyze_budget_live' by focusing on historical data.

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 implies usage for historical budget data but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'analyze_budget_live' or any exclusions. It lacks when-not-to-use instructions.

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