get_budget

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full transparency burden. It discloses the default compact table behavior, the collapsing of uniform periods with an example, and the verbose alternative. It also mentions the return format ('compact text table'). It doesn't mention side effects (implying read-only, which aligns with the read-like name), does not note permissions/errors, but the behavioral disclosure is substantive and useful.

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 tight and front-loaded: first line states the primary purpose, then the compact-vs-verbose behavior, then a clear Args section. Every sentence earns its place — no fluff, no repetition of tool name or schema titles. The example ('250/mo (all periods)') is illuminating, not padding.

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 two simple params (one string, one boolean with default), no nested objects, and an output schema present, the description covers the behavioral nuances (compact vs verbose return) well. The compact-table collapse behavior is the key differentiator and is clearly explained. The presence of an output schema relieves the description of returning-format burden. This is complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 must compensate for the two parameters. It does explain both: 'name: Budget name.' and verbose behavior is described in prose ('Use verbose=true for the full structured periods dict per account'). Both params are covered at a basic level. However, the description for name is minimal (just 'Budget name') with no details on format, case sensitivity, or how to find valid names — though at least it addresses both parameters, earning the baseline 3.

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?

Description clearly states 'Get full details of a budget including all budget amounts' with a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like list_budgets (listing vs details), get_budget_report (report vs full details), and set_budget_amount (write vs read). The purpose is unambiguous.

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 the compact vs verbose return mode and when to use verbose=true ('Use verbose=true for the full structured periods dict per account'). It implicitly differentiates from list_budgets/get_budget_report by focusing on full details, though it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or state when NOT to use this tool. Clear context but no explicit exclusions of sibling tools.

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