Get budgets

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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful behavioral context: the result is broken down by category and month, and there is a default date window when no dates are supplied. It does not contradict the annotations.

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?

Two sentences contain no filler. The first sentence communicates the output substance, and the second gives the most important invocation default. Every element earns its place.

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 low-complexity, read-only tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It names the budget measures, grouping dimension, and default date behavior. Minor ambiguity about how start_date and end_date behave when only one is supplied prevents a higher score.

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 schema only documents the date format and optionality. The description adds meaningful cross-parameter semantics by explaining that omitting both dates selects the previous-through-next-month window. It does not fully explain single-date behavior or range inclusivity, but the schema and descriptive parameter names carry much of the burden.

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 tells an agent exactly what is returned: planned, actual, remaining, and rollover amounts grouped by category and month. This is far more specific than the tool name and clearly separates it from the account, transaction, and cashflow getter 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 gives a clear retrieval context and practical invocation guidance by saying 'Omit both dates for the previous through next month.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the intended role of the tool is clear enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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