fiscal_budget_breakdown

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description doesn't repeat those. It adds valuable behavioral details: level semantics (1=total, 2=first breakdown), contains as a path-substring filter, and the note returned for empty results. No contradiction with annotations.

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 three sentences: purpose, use case, and parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is well front-loaded with the definition.

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 four optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, parameter meanings, and an edge case (empty result note). The only minor gap is the meaning of year=null, but the schema default and overall context reduce the impact.

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%, but the description compensates by explaining topic with concrete examples, defining level as hierarchy depth, and clarifying contains as a drill-down filter. Year is only loosely implied, but the schema provides type and range, making it reasonably understandable.

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 'Hierarchical federal-budget breakdown for one topic and year,' which clearly states the resource and the specific operation. It also differentiates from siblings like fiscal_headline by emphasizing drill-down and filtering via level and contains.

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?

It provides a concrete use case ('see where the money goes') with an example question, and explains when hierarchy parameters are useful. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select this over fiscal_headline or fiscal_by_institution.

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