get_budget

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, so the description's main behavioral contribution is the output-shape disclosure: compact text collapses uniform periods, while verbose=true returns structured JSON. This adds meaningful context beyond the annotations. It doesn't mention error behavior, but for a read-only retrieval tool the output behavior is the key trait.

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 well-organized and front-loaded: purpose, output behavior, then parameter details. Every sentence contributes useful information, and the verbose explanation is concise while still covering the important distinction. No fluff or repetition.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, this description is quite complete: it explains the default and verbose output, the structure of the verbose result, and the purpose of each parameter. Minor gaps like exact name-matching behavior or error handling are not critical given the simplicity of the operation.

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 carry parameter semantics. It fully compensates: 'name' is explained as the budget name, and 'verbose' gets a detailed explanation of both states including the default and the resulting output format. This goes well beyond the bare boolean/string 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 clearly states the verb and resource: 'Get full details of a budget including all budget amounts.' This is specific and readable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_budget_report or list_budgets, but the full-details framing and output details make its scope reasonably clear.

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 gives clear guidance on when to use verbose=true versus the default compact text output, even explaining the tradeoff between token efficiency and machine-readable structure. It does not explicitly mention when to choose this tool over similar siblings, so it falls just short of a 5.

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