Monthly budget status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: values are in the main currency, the month start day is taken from the profile, and rollover between months is explicitly not modelled. These are non-obvious traits that materially affect interpretation.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the resource and then lists the payload fields, followed by two short constraint clauses. No filler, though the enumeration is tightly packed and could be marginally clearer.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining returns and does so (per-category, subcategories, totals, currency). Read-only safety is covered by annotations, and the rollover caveat closes the main interpretive gap; only the side parameter semantics remain unaddressed.

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 50%: month is documented in the schema but side is an unexplained enum (expense/income/both). The description does not clarify what side does or how it changes the result, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap on the undocumented parameter.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('ZenMoney budget for a month') and enumerates the returned fields (budget, actual, remaining, % used, planned operations, subtotals), so the agent knows exactly what this tool produces. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from its nearest siblings like set_budgets (the write counterpart) or get_overview, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no reference to any alternative tool. The description only elaborates what is returned and a couple of behavioral quirks; it never states the condition that should make an agent pick get_budget over get_overview or summarize_transactions.

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