get_remaining_budget

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. The verbs 'Return' and 'check' clearly imply a read-only operation, and the description discloses the returned fields and the concept of 'close to starved.' However, it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, require no special permissions, or describe error behavior—though these are partially implied by the tool name and usage.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the function and output fields; the second provides a directly actionable use case. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations. The description compensates by listing all returned fields (remaining budget, allocated, consumed, priority, protected minimum reserve) and the context for use. An agent has enough information to call the tool and interpret the result.

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% because agent_id is described as 'The registered agent to look up.' The description adds only the notion of 'single agent,' which reinforces the semantics already present in the schema but does not add meaningful new meaning beyond it. Baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Return a single agent's current remaining token budget' along with the exact fields returned. It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing 'single agent' (vs. get_budget_snapshot) and by connecting to the reallocation workflow (vs. request_reallocation).

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 gives a clear use case: 'Use this to check whether an agent is close to starved before deciding whether to request a reallocation.' It implies when this tool is appropriate relative to request_reallocation, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name the alternative get_budget_snapshot.

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