list_ingest_budgets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return fields (budget names, scopes, capacity, timezone, etc.) which adds behavioral context, but does not mention side effects, permissions, or pagination behavior. The schema hints at pagination via the token parameter, but the description omits this.

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 three sentences with no fluff. It opens with the core action, then details return values, then provides domain context. Every sentence earns its place, making it appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the description covers the purpose, return fields, and domain context. An output schema exists, so return values are formally captured. Missing details like pagination and explicit usage prerequisites are minor gaps for a list operation, but overall it is reasonably complete.

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%, with both 'limit' and 'token' having clear descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information beyond pointing out the return fields. Per the rubric, with high schema coverage, a 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?

The description clearly states 'List all ingest budgets (v2)' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling list tools by specifying the resource type and listing the key fields returned, making its 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 clear context that ingest budgets control data volume limits per scope, implying this tool is for reviewing those limits. It does not explicitly exclude scenarios or name alternatives, but since no other ingest budget tools exist among siblings, the usage context is sufficient.

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