get_budget_summary

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

With readOnlyHint=true already present, the description adds useful behavioral detail: the returned per-category totals, the per-period breakdown behavior tied to include_occurrences, and the backing v2 GET /summary endpoint. It does not disclose pagination, errors, or rate limits, but the read-only safety profile is covered by 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?

Three sentences with no filler: the first states the core action and scope, the second lists return fields and key option behavior, and the third notes the backing endpoint. Information is front-loaded and every sentence 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?

Although there is no output schema, the description names the main returned fields and explains the key optional breakdown. All parameters are fully described in the input schema, and the read-only annotation covers safety. Minor gaps like top-level response shape for all optional flags are inferable from the schema descriptions, so the definition 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all seven parameters. The description adds a small amount of extra meaning by explaining include_occurrences as a per-period breakdown matching budget periodicity, but it does not need to repeat parameter details and does not materially enhance the schema beyond that.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource ('Get a summary of the user's budget for a specified date range') and lists the exact returned per-category fields. This clearly distinguishes it from budget mutation and settings tools like upsert_budget, remove_budget, and get_budget_settings.

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 read-only budget summary usage and explains when to set include_occurrences=true, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. Usage context is clear but left mostly to inference.

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