Get monthly budget

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered by structure. The description adds that category ids are exposed specifically for set_budget consumption, which is useful behavioral context beyond annotations. It doesn't describe response format or pagination, but this is a straightforward report tool with decent annotation coverage, so a 3 is appropriate.

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, compact and informative. The field enumeration is useful without being bloated. One minor inefficiency is that it could front-load the verb more strongly, but overall it's efficient and each clause earns its place.

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 report-style tool with readOnlyHint annotation and only 2 parameters (one fully documented in schema), the description provides adequate coverage of what the tool returns. However, it lacks any mention of return value structure or how the month parameter format works, which would help given no output schema. It's functional but could be more complete.

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' has a pattern but no semantic description, while 'only_active' has a description in the schema. The description names the fields the tool reports but doesn't explain the parameters beyond the schema. This is borderline; the description adds thematic context (what the report contains) but doesn't compensate for the undocumented 'month' parameter semantics beyond what the pattern implies.

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 what the tool does: it reports budget status for a month, enumerating specific data points (to-budget, income, totals, per-category budgeted/spent/balance). It distinguishes from siblings like get_budget_averages by being month-specific and including category ids. However, it doesn't explicitly name the alternative tools or clarify scope distinction beyond the mention of set_budget.

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 (getting budget status for a month) but provides no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance. The 'Category ids included for set_budget' note implies a downstream use, which is useful context. However, it doesn't clarify when to use this over get_budget_averages or get_spending_summary, or mention that it's read-only.

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