Get Budget Settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by naming what settings are returned and clarifying that inputs are always canonical (dollars and YYYY-MM-DD), which goes beyond the schema and annotations.

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 tight sentences with no redundancy: the first states the resource, the second confirms safety, and the third gives precise usage guidance. Information is front-loaded and every sentence 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?

With full annotation coverage, an output schema present, one optional parameter, and a description that covers both when and when not to use the tool, nothing material is missing for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 100%, and the schema already documents budgetId as optional with a default. The description adds no additional parameter-specific detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a budget's settings') and names the exact contents: currency format (symbol, decimal digits, placement) and date format. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_budget and list_budgets, which address different scopes.

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 when to use it ('when formatting amounts or dates for display') and when not to ('not needed for tool inputs, which always use dollars and YYYY-MM-DD'). This gives the agent actionable routing guidance and prevents unnecessary calls.

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