Get budget overview

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, establishing it as a safe read. The description adds that it is a GET operation with authorization class 'board_or_agent,' providing modest behavioral context beyond annotations. No mention of latency, data freshness, or pagination, but the safety profile is well-covered.

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 exceptionally concise: two short sentences conveying the operation, endpoint, and authorization. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or excess. Ideal for an AI agent to parse quickly.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown in input schema), the description need not document return values. It covers the essential behavioral traits (read-only, auth class) but lacks context on what a 'budget overview' entails (e.g., spending totals, budget status). Still, it is adequate for a simple read operation with good 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?

The sole parameter `companyId` is self-explanatory as a path identifier. Although the description has 0% schema coverage (no explicit parameter descriptions), the endpoint path in the description (`/api/companies/{companyId}/budgets/overview`) implicitly documents the parameter. Additional details on data type or format are unnecessary given the parameter's simplicity.

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 title and description clearly state 'Get budget overview,' indicating a read operation on a high-level budget summary. It is distinct from sibling tools like `pc_patch_companies_by_company_id_budgets` (update) or `pc_post_companies_by_company_id_budgets_policies` (create policy), but the description does not elaborate on what the overview contains, which would elevate clarity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative budget tools (e.g., for detailed budget editing or policy management). It only states the HTTP method and auth class, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name alone.

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