analyze_budget

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

The description does not disclose any behavioral aspects such as being read-only, requiring authentication, or side effects. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for transparency but fails to address 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 concise but poorly structured. The example for expenses_json is embedded in the description, which could be better presented in a dedicated parameter description section. The first sentence is appropriate, but the rest is somewhat informal.

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?

The description is incomplete. It leaves two out of four parameters unexplained, lacks usage guidelines, and does not mention the output format despite an output schema existing. Given the schema coverage is 0%, more detail is expected.

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 description includes an example for expenses_json and implies the use of monthly_income, adding some meaning beyond the schema which has 0% description coverage. However, the optional parameters existing_emis and existing_sips are not explained.

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 the tool analyzes a household budget using the 50/30/20 rule, providing a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from many sibling financial calculators, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar analysis tools like analyze_cash_flow.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no prerequisites, when-not-to-use instructions, or comparisons with sibling tools.

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