Get Budget Remaining

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, which aligns with the description calling it a 'read-only dry-run'. The description adds context about its use in a workflow (before authorization) and implies no side effects. No contradictions.

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 concise (two sentences), front-loads the purpose, and includes essential usage guidance without extraneous 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 high parameter count (11) and zero schema descriptions, the description lacks completeness on parameter usage. However, the presence of an output schema covers return values, and the core use case is well-defined. The description is adequate but does not fully compensate for missing parameter details.

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 description does not explain any of the 11 parameters beyond the vague mention of 'tenant-bound intent'. With 0% schema description coverage, the agent must infer parameter meanings from names alone, missing guidance on optional parameters like currency, tool_name, etc.

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 tool's purpose: a read-only dry-run to check remaining spend budget for a tenant-bound intent before authorizing a paid tool. It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('remaining spend budget'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by mentioning when not to use.

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 explicitly states when to use it ('before authorizing a paid tool') and when not to use it ('do not use to authorize spend or create decisions'), directing the agent to the alternative tool paybond_authorize_agent_spend.

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