Get Budget Settings

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

Annotations already declare the operation read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description's 'Read-only' adds no new safety information. However, the description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it clarifies that the output formats are for display only and that all tool inputs are in a fixed dollar/YYYY-MM-DD style, which helps the agent understand the tool's role without risking misuse.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, the read-only note follows, and the usage guidance is packed into the second sentence. Every word contributes to help an agent decide to call this tool and understand its output.

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?

This is a simple tool with one optional parametercrazy and an output schema already present. The description covers its purpose, the exact fields returned, and when to use it versus not. There is no missing information an agent would need to invoke this tool correctly, and the presence of an output schema means return structure is already defined elsewhere.

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 schema already documents the single parameter 'budgetId' with its description ('Budget ID (uses default if not provided)') at 100% coverage. The tool description itself adds no additional meaning to the parameter, such as how the default budget is chosen or the expected format of the ID. With complete schema coverage, baseline 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?

The description clearly states a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('a budget's settings'), and enumerates the exact contents (currency format with symbol, decimal digits, placement, and date format). This differentiates it from sibling tools like get_budget, which would return the budget object itself, and list_budgets, which returns all budgets.

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 an explicit when-to-use: 'Use when formatting amounts or dates for display.' It also provides a clear when-not-needed exclusion: 'not needed for tool inputs, which always use dollars and YYYY-MM-DD,' effectively telling the agent this tool is for display presentation, not for constructing API inputs. This is directly actionable.

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