Get Budget Health

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it combines month data, account balances, and trailing-3-month summaries; explains the green/yellow/red thresholds; notes defaults are not YNAB rules; and discloses an approximate API cost of 4 requests.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: what it returns, threshold interpretation, and when to use it. Front-loaded with the core purpose and no filler.

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 output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description fully equips an agent to decide when to call it and what to expect. It also gives cost and usage-position context that structured fields do not.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra semantics for budgetId beyond what the schema already provides, but the schema is sufficient on its own.

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 states a specific verb ('snapshot') and resource ('budget health') and enumerates the exact metrics included. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by framing itself as a composite overview and 'opening move' rather than a drill-down tool.

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?

Explicitly says to use it as the opening move of a monthly review or 'how am I doing' question, then drill into specific tools. This is clear contextual guidance, though it does not name particular alternatives or when-not conditions.

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