get_month

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves 'detailed budget information' but doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, what format the data returns (e.g., JSON structure), or any rate limits. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and safety profile.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get detailed budget information for a specific month') and adds a useful detail ('including all category balances'). There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 tool's complexity (retrieving detailed financial data), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects (e.g., read-only nature, error handling), output format, or usage context relative to siblings. While the purpose is clear, the description fails to compensate for the missing structured information, leaving the agent under-informed.

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 100%, with both parameters ('budget_id' and 'month') fully documented in the schema. The description adds marginal value by implying the parameters are used to fetch month-specific data, but it doesn't provide additional context beyond what the schema already states (e.g., explaining 'month' format 'YYYY-MM-01' is covered in schema). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Get detailed budget information for a specific month including all category balances.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('budget information'), and scope ('for a specific month'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_budget' or 'list_months' by focusing on month-level details. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'list_categories' or 'list_transactions' in terms of data granularity, preventing a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid budget_id), exclusions (e.g., not for year-level data), or comparisons to siblings like 'get_budget' (overall budget) or 'list_months' (month summaries). Usage is implied by the description but lacks explicit context for agent decision-making.

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