get_budget_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burdens. It discloses return format behavior (compact text table by default, full dict with verbose), the ⚠ markers on budget-exceeding categories, and period selection behavior (None = current period). This is a read/report tool and the description is consistent with that, but doesn't explicitly confirm it's non-mutating or describe error conditions (e.g., budget not found).

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 with a clear opening sentence, a return-format note, then a structured Args section. The period enum is clearly documented. It's slightly long but every element earns its place since schema coverage is 0%. No wasted words.

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-generation tool with 5 params, the description covers all key aspects: input semantics, output format controls, and default behaviors. There is an output schema present which covers return values. Minor gaps include no explicit error-case handling (e.g., missing budget) or mention of whether account filtering requires exact names, but overall this is fairly complete for a reporting tool.

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 carries full parameter documentation burden. The description thoroughly explains period semantics (None/0-11/'ytd'/'all' values with meanings), account filtering behavior, include_children relationship to account, and verbose meaning. This compensates effectively for the absent schema descriptions.

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 starts with a clear verb+resource: 'Compare actual spending against budget.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_budget (which retrieves budget definitions), net_worth, balance_sheet, etc. by focusing on spend-vs-budget comparison. However, there are multiple budget-related siblings (get_budget, list_budgets, set_budget_amount) so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit but still 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 contextual usage including default behavior (current period based on today's date) and the return format (compact text table with ⚠ markers vs full structured dict with verbose=true). It explains the output format choices but does not explicitly state when-not to use it versus alternatives like get_job_report or spending_by_category.

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