Get Budget Remaining

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the description's mentions of 'read-only dry-run' align with and reinforce that. The description adds context about being a dry-run and not authorizing spend, which is helpful. However, no additional behavioral details (e.g., rate limits, required permissions) are provided, but given the strong annotation coverage, the description adds meaningful context.

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 consists of two well-structured, front-loaded sentences. Every word adds value: the first sentence defines usage, the second excludes misuse and directs to the sibling tool. No wasted words or redundant 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?

Given the complexity (11 parameters, output schema exists but is not described), the description only covers the high-level purpose and when to use it. It does not explain what the output contains (e.g., remaining budget in cents, budget limits, expiry) or how parameters like currency or requested_spend_cents affect the result. For a budget query tool, this leaves significant gaps for the agent to understand the full context.

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 11 parameters with 0% schema description coverage (only generic titles like 'Task Id', 'Currency'). The description only mentions 'tenant-bound intent', which loosely relates to intent_id, but fails to explain the purpose or behavior of other parameters (e.g., currency, operation, tool_name, requested_spend_cents). With no param details in schema and minimal coverage in description, the agent lacks guidance on what to provide, leading to a low score.

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 explicitly states the tool provides a 'read-only dry-run of remaining spend budget for a tenant-bound intent', clearly identifying the verb (get budget), resource (spend budget), and scope (tenant-bound intent). It effectively distinguishes from the sibling tool paybond_authorize_agent_spend by specifying that this is for pre-authorization checks.

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 explicit guidance: 'Use this when you need a read-only dry-run... before authorizing a paid tool' and 'Do not use this to authorize spend or create decisions; call paybond_authorize_agent_spend when you are ready to gate a side-effecting tool.' This clearly states when and when not to use the tool, and names the alternative sibling.

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