budget_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the returned values and draws an important boundary: the server reports spend status but does not stop runs or enforce the budget. It could still be more explicit about read-only behavior, permissions, or error conditions, but the key behavioral trait is clearly disclosed.

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 front-loaded with the tool's purpose, then cleanly documents arguments, return values, and the server-versus-framework responsibility boundary. Every part is relevant and the overall length is appropriate for a simple two-parameter tool.

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-style status tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the needed context: what it checks, both parameter meanings, what it returns, and what it explicitly does not do. An agent can call it correctly without additional structured documentation.

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 parameters. It does: task_id is explained as the identifier used with record_spend, and budget_usd is explained as the budget in USD. Both required parameters are given meaning beyond their bare names.

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 and resource: checking a task's recorded spend against a budget. It clearly differs from record_spend by referring to recorded spend and by noting that enforcement belongs to the agent framework, but it does not explicitly contrast with the other sibling tools such as estimate_run_cost or price_usage.

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 after spend has been recorded, since task_id is described as the identifier used with record_spend. It also clarifies that the server only supplies numbers and does not enforce the budget, which is useful usage context, but it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to sibling tools.

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