get_budget_report

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

The description goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by explaining the default compact text-table output with ⚠ markers on categories exceeding budget, and the toggle to verbose structured JSON. It also notes the token-efficiency rationale for the default, giving the agent useful behavioral context for choosing output formats.

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 structured with a clear purpose line, output summary, and an Args section where every parameter gets a scannable bullet. Each sentence serves a distinct purpose, and the verbose/format guidance is front-loaded before the parameter details.

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 the tool's complexity, the description covers all invocation-relevant behavior: default output format, verbose mode, period options, account filtering, and child-account inclusion. The presence of an output schema means return structure is already specified elsewhere, so no additional return documentation is necessary.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by documenting every parameter: budget_name, period (including the None default, integer range, 'ytd', and 'all' options), account, include_children, and verbose. The period parameter especially benefits from concrete allowed values that the raw schema does not convey.

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 first sentence, "Compare actual spending against budget," names a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing this from budget configuration tools like get_budget or create_budget. The mention of compact text tables with warning markers further reinforces that this is a reporting tool rather than a CRUD operation.

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 makes it clear the tool is for comparing spending to budget and provides detailed period semantics, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling report tools such as spending_by_category, vendor_spending_report, or get_job_report. Usage is implied rather than explicitly routed with alternatives and exclusions.

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