get_account_budget_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the return contents ('daily budget amounts alongside 30-day cost') and the analytical purpose, establishing it as a read-only analysis tool. It does not mention permissions or rate limits, but these are less critical for a non-mutating summary operation.

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 two sentences: the first states the core function, and the second elaborates on output and purpose. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, containing no redundant or filler language.

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?

With an output schema present and 100% parameter coverage, the description sufficiently covers purpose, return contents, and when to use the tool. It fully supports a simple read operation with no apparent gaps in context.

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 100% with clear descriptions for both customer_id and login_customer_id. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 'Return campaign budgets and current spend' with a specific verb and resource, and adds the analytical purpose 'budget pacing analysis' and expected outcome 'identify budget-constrained campaigns or overspending.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_campaign_budget, which handles mutations.

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 usage context through 'for budget pacing analysis' and 'to help identify budget-constrained campaigns or overspending,' giving clear direction on when to apply the tool. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the read-only nature is obvious relative to mutation siblings like update_campaign_budget.

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