Get Budgets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds genuinely valuable behavior beyond annotations: it discloses that missing end_date defaults to today and missing start_date defaults to the first day of the end's month, plus natural-language date parsing. This context is not inferable from the schema or annotations and helps the agent predict behavior on partial input.

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?

Roughly 40 words across two short paragraphs, with the core purpose front-loaded in the first sentence and the parameter behavior in the second. Every sentence earns its place — purpose, then format/defaults. Slightly more compact phrasing was possible, but it's already tight and well-structured.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with two optional params and an output schema (so return format needs no description), the description is fairly complete: it covers purpose, both parameters' formats and defaults. The main gap is the lack of guidance distinguishing it from overlapping siblings like get_cashflow, get_spending_summary, and get_complete_financial_overview.

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 must compensate for both undocumented parameters. It does so well: it explains the accepted formats (ISO strings or natural language like 'last month') and the default behavior for each parameter. This fully covers both start_date and end_date semantics, though it stops short of defining what a 'budget' range represents.

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 states a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('budgets') with clear scoping via optional date filters. It's distinguishable from mutation siblings like set_budget_amount, but it doesn't explicitly differentiate from overlapping financial-report siblings like get_cashflow or get_spending_summary, which an agent might confuse with budget retrieval.

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 explains the date-filter behavior in detail (ISO strings, natural language, defaults for missing start/end), which implicitly guides usage — e.g., an agent can request a month's budget by supplying only a start_date. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions vs. the many similar financial tools in the sibling list.

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