Get Overspent Categories

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral context by explaining the significance of the returned data ('silently reducing the current month's Ready to Assign') and the temporal scope ('prior-month overspends'). This enriches the agent's understanding without contradicting any annotation.

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 sentences with zero wasted words. The primary purpose is stated first, followed immediately by the practical use case. The description is front-loaded and efficient.

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 is present, so the return format is covered. The description explains the tool's purpose and use-case clearly. For a simple tool with only two parameters (one required), the description is sufficient. It does not discuss edge cases or the default budgetId behavior, but these are minor given the schema and annotations.

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%, so both parameters (month and budgetId) are already documented in the schema. The description only references the month parameter implicitly via 'for a given month' but adds no syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 ('Get'), a resource ('all categories with a negative balance'), and a temporal scope ('for a given month'). It clearly conveys the tool's function. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_month_category, the phrasing 'all categories' and the focus on negative balance make the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides a clear use case: 'Use this to find prior-month overspends that are silently reducing the current month's Ready to Assign.' This tells the agent when to apply the tool. It does not list alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context is sufficiently specific for the agent to infer appropriateness.

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