whooing_budget

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows it is a safe read operation. The description adds no further behavioral context beyond 'Get', which is redundant. Without additional disclosures (e.g., pagination, limits), it meets baseline but adds no extra value.

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 sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose, the second provides critical date format. Information is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not explain what the response contains (e.g., categories, totals, comparison). Given the number of sibling budget tools, more detail on return value or data structure is needed to help the agent choose correctly.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage with detailed schema documentation for each parameter. The description only reinforces the date format already present in the schema. Since the schema fully describes parameters, the description provides no additional meaning, earning the baseline score.

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 verb 'Get', the resource 'budget status', and the scope 'for a date range'. It also specifies the date format YYYYMM, which is critical. Among siblings, it differentiates from other budget-related tools like whooing_balance or whooing_monthly_summary by focusing on expenses.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no indication of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the name and brief description alone.

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