get_budget

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the shape of what comes back (fixed/variable/tracking/income envelopes, planned amounts, included and excluded transactions), which is genuine value. However it says nothing about read-only nature, auth/session requirements, or error behavior for invalid months.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the core resource ('One cashflow month...') and then details its contents. Dense but no filler; slightly run-on with the trailing 'excluded from the cashflow' clause, but efficient overall.

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?

With no output schema, the description must explain return values, and it does a reasonable job describing the envelope/transaction structure. It remains incomplete on session prerequisites and failure modes for a read tool with no annotations, but the core content picture is present.

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 coverage is 100% and the single month parameter is already documented as 'Cashflow month, YYYY-MM.' The description only echoes 'one cashflow month' without adding format, range, or default semantics, so nothing is added beyond the schema — baseline 3.

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 names a specific resource (a cashflow month as RiseUp renders it) and enumerates its constituents: envelopes by type, planned amounts, their transactions, and excluded transactions. An agent can tell this is a budget-month read distinct from the transaction-level siblings, though it never states a verb or explicitly distinguishes itself from list_transactions.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The agent cannot tell from the text whether this should be preferred over list_transactions or list_categories when it wants cashflow data, or what prerequisites (login/session) apply.

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