get_budget_summary

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: demo spending excludes pending items and transfers, and live access is not implemented in this scaffold. No contradiction with 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 tight sentences: the first states the core operation, the second states the key data-scope caveat. Every sentence earns its place and the main purpose is front-loaded.

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 the output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description covers the essential behavioral caveats (pending-item exclusion, live access limitation) needed to interpret results correctly. It could add a note about what 'planned' vs 'spent' means, but that is not necessary for correct invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden for parameter meaning. It conveys that the month parameter selects monthly planned/spent amounts, but it does not mention the required YYYY-MM format or requiredness. The schema's pattern fills that gap, so the description provides partial semantic value.

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 opens with 'Read monthly planned and spent amounts by category' – a specific verb, resource, and aggregation scope. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_accounts and list_transactions, which cover account/transaction listing rather than budget summaries.

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 this is the tool for budget-by-category summaries, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over siblings or when not to use it. The demo/live caveat is behavioral context rather than routing guidance, so usage is inferred rather than explicit.

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