Get Month

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful signal by labeling amounts as dollars, but says nothing about budget scoping behavior or whether a missing month/budget falls back to a default.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the core payload is front-loaded in the first sentence. Nothing to trim.

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 an output schema present, return values needn't be explained, and the description adequately lists what the response contains plus units. The only real gap is the undocumented budgetId parameter, which the description never clarifies.

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 only 50%: 'month' is documented in the schema (YYYY-MM-DD, first of month) but 'budgetId' has no description anywhere. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented optional parameter.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Get month totals') and enumerates the payload concisely: category budgets, activity, balances, goals. This distinguishes it from list_months and get_month_category well enough, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with get_income_expense_summary or get_month_category.

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?

It gives an explicit routing rule for one edge case ('For negative balances use get_overspent_categories'), which is exactly the kind of sibling disambiguation an agent needs. It stops short of stating when to prefer this over get_month_category or get_income_expense_summary for overlapping data.

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