Get Budget Settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new information beyond the structured fields: that display settings do not change the wire format of tool inputs. It omits what happens when the optional budgetId is omitted.

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?

Two compact sentences with the capability stated first and the caveat second; nothing is padded. The phrase 'Tool inputs remain dollars and YYYY-MM-DD' is slightly compressed and could confuse an agent about scope, but it earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. The remaining gap is the undocumented optional budgetId and the absence of any mention of the enclosing budget, leaving the call under-specified for a single-parameter 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?

There is one parameter, budgetId, with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it — not what it identifies, not whether it defaults to a primary budget when omitted. The second sentence covers input formatting generally but adds nothing about this parameter, so the coverage gap is left unfilled.

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 resource — display currency and date formats — which is concrete enough that an agent knows exactly what comes back. It stops short of naming the containing budget or differentiating from siblings, and the 'dollars' phrasing narrows it to one currency assumption.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer it should call this to learn how values are displayed before formatting output, reinforced by the note that tool inputs stay in raw dollars/YYYY-MM-DD. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the extensive siblings.

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