Months — Get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description nonetheless adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: deleted categories are never returned, hidden categories are where credit-card payment categories live, and amounts are in milliunits (1000 = $1.00). It stops short of describing pagination or error behavior, but adds meaningful value.

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?

Front-loads the core action and payload, then packs format, compaction, hidden-category, and unit notes into tight clauses. Every sentence adds information, though the milliunits and hidden-category asides make it slightly dense for a single-resource getter.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value structure needn't be re-explained, yet the description usefully covers units (milliunits) and what fields compact returns. Combined with the format guidance for 'month' and the sibling routing, an agent has everything needed to invoke this correctly.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It fully documents the required 'month' param (three accepted ISO/YYYY-MM/'current' forms), the compact flag's effect and size tradeoff, and include_hidden's semantics. The 'plan_id' parameter is never mentioned, which is the one clear gap for a 4-param tool.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('one month's categories') with the exact payload contents (budgeted, activity, balance). It also names the sibling months_range and the condition that distinguishes them, so an agent can disambiguate without opening schemas.

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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance for each mode: compact=true for month-over-month review, full form only when goal fields or notes are needed, include_hidden=true specifically to surface credit-card payment categories. It also routes multi-month comparison to months_range (up to 36 months), naming the alternative directly.

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