budget_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states that it gets history, but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what data is included in the history, or any caveats such as pagination or time ranges. This is a minimal disclosure for a read tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It efficiently states the tool's purpose, earning a high score for conciseness.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the history response looks like or any constraints. The phrase 'history of a specific budget' is vague about whether it returns a list of changes, snapshots, or related transactions, making the tool under-specified for an agent.

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 input schema covers 100% of the single parameter (id) with a clear description ('Budget ID'). The description adds no extra semantic detail about the parameter beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific action ('Get') and resource ('history of a specific budget'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like budget_get or budget_list. The resource is specific enough to convey the tool's function, though 'history' could be more explicit about what kind of history.

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 offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., budget_get or budget_list). The usage is only implied by the word 'history' in the description, leaving the agent to infer context without explicit do's or don'ts.

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