Fiscal Budget Breakdown

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

The annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description adds value by explaining the hierarchical drill-down semantics and the `note` on empty results. It also clarifies that `contains` filters a path substring. This is useful behavior beyond the structured fields.

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?

Three sentences, all dense with useful information, and the core purpose is front-loaded. The use case and parameter examples are not filler; they directly help invocation correctness.

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 output schema exists and annotations already carry safety and idempotency, this description covers the remaining invocation-relevant context: topic choices, hierarchy levels, contains behavior, and empty-result handling. Nothing critical is missing for this read-only drill-down tool.

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 carries the full burden for parameter meaning. It explains topic with concrete examples, level with hierarchy depth semantics, and contains with a path-substring filter. Year is at least mentioned as part of the core use case, which compensates for the bare schema.

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 opens with a specific noun phrase: 'Hierarchical federal-budget breakdown for one topic and year', which names the resource and the operation. It also gives a concrete use case and topic examples, so an agent can identify what this tool returns and how it differs from sibling tools like fiscal_by_institution or fiscal_headline.

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 explains when to use it: 'see where the money goes', with a concrete example question and sample topic values. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough that a capable agent can route correctly.

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