Get Budget Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds context about what the tool shows (spending vs limits, warning/exceeded counts, enforcement modes) and confirms it accesses all budget configurations, aligning with annotations with no contradictions.

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 concise sentences: first states purpose and content, second provides usage guidance. No extraneous information.

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 parameters and a straightforward read operation, the description covers what the tool returns. It is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's function, though it does not detail the output structure (no output schema provided).

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so there is no need for parameter explanations. The description adds no parameter detail, but baseline 4 is appropriate per guidelines.

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 the specific verb 'Get' and resource 'budget status', clearly stating it retrieves current status of all budget configurations. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_budget and update_budget_mode by explicitly noting it is read-only.

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 tells the agent exactly when to use this tool ('to monitor spending governance') and explicitly warns against using it for creating/changing budgets, directing to specific alternatives ('set_budget or update_budget_mode').

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