budget_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful semantics about what 'committed' means (spend from live orders), but says nothing about how 'live' is defined, caching, or freshness of the figures.

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 short blocks, front-loaded with the payload summary; the example is high-value. The 'Args:' docstring formatting is slightly mechanical but wastes no content.

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 read-only annotations covering safety, the description only needs to explain the computation and its input, which it does. Minor gaps around order-liveness criteria and name matching are not blocking for a single-param lookup.

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 must carry the burden — and it does supply the meaning of cost_centre plus a concrete format example ('Fleet Operations - LDU'). Matching semantics (exact vs partial name) remain unstated, keeping it below a 5.

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 resource and scope: a cost centre's annual budget, committed spend from live orders, and remaining balance. Clearly distinct from the PO-mutation siblings, though it doesn't explicitly name or contrast any alternative.

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?

No guidance on when to call this versus e.g. list_purchase_orders or preview, no prerequisites, no exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the one-line content summary.

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