tokmeter_budget_alert

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: it computes projections and time-to-exhaustion and emits tri-state color status. It does not mention what happens when the optional weekly/monthly budgets are omitted, which is the main remaining gap.

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, front-loaded with the core capability, followed by the concrete outputs. No filler or repetition of the title. Slightly dense but every clause carries signal.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden, and it does so by enumerating spend, percentage, projected end-of-period spend, hours remaining, and status colors. Only edge behavior (single-threshold invocation, what triggers an 'alert' vs a status read) is unaddressed.

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% and each parameter already documents its unit (USD) and bounds. The description only restates 'daily/weekly/monthly thresholds' without adding format, defaults, or interaction rules (e.g. whether weekly/monthly are optional overrides). Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: proactive budget monitoring with configurable daily/weekly/monthly thresholds, plus what it reports (spend, percent used, projection, hours remaining, status). That is far clearer than a name restatement. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling tokmeter_budget, so an agent cannot tell the two apart from the descriptions alone.

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?

Usage is implied: configure thresholds and read status. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over tokmeter_budget, tokmeter_forecast, or tokmeter_anomaly, and no exclusions or prerequisites. Adequate but leaves routing to the agent's guesswork among closely named siblings.

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