Overview — Month health

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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes further with non-obvious behavior: it costs two requests, it reports the previous month's overspending by group because it is settled before this month, and only cash overspending comes out of Ready to Assign. That is genuine context beyond 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?

The purpose and returned fields are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the default behavior follows immediately. The middle explanation of previous-month overspending is a long, dense clause, but it conveys a real semantic trap rather than filler.

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 the description is not obliged to enumerate return values, yet it does. With annotations covering safety and cost/behavior quirks disclosed, the main remaining gap is the undocumented plan_id parameter.

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 0%, so the description carries the full parameter burden. It defines month precisely ('ISO date string for first day of month, e.g. 2024-01-01') but says nothing about plan_id, leaving one of two parameters undocumented in both places.

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?

[READ] Summarize a budget month' is a specific verb+resource, and the description enumerates the returned measures (income, budgeted, activity, to-be-budgeted, overspent categories, underfunded goals) plus the previous-month overspending report. It separates itself from analysis_overspent_history by name. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close overview siblings like overview_budget_snapshot, so it falls short of a 5.

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 only routing guidance is implicit: 'Defaults to current month' and the pointer to analysis_overspent_history when the cash-vs-card split of overspending matters. There is no statement of when to prefer this over overview_budget_snapshot, months_get, or months_range, so usage is implied rather than stated.

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