get_budget_impact

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is read-only (returns data), lists the content returned, and explicitly states the available years (a limitation). It does not add deeper behavioral context such as data source, update frequency, or potential errors, but for a simple historical data lookup it provides adequate transparency without contradiction.

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 remarkably concise, using short paragraphs to state purpose, return content, available years, and argument format. Every sentence earns its place; no fluff or repetition. The front-loaded purpose sentence immediately clarifies the tool's role.

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?

This is a simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, so the description covers the essentials: what it does, what it returns, valid inputs. It even lists available years to set user expectations. Minor gaps include not describing the output structure or any prerequisites, but the output schema likely covers that, making it contextually complete for the tool's low complexity.

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 schema has only a 'year' parameter with no description (0% coverage), so the description compensates well by explaining 'Budget year as string' and providing explicit examples ('2025', '2024', '2023') plus the list of available years. This adds meaningful guidance beyond the schema's type/default, though it could be even more explicit about validation constraints.

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's purpose: 'Historical Union Budget impact by year' with a specific verb 'Returns' and content details (key announcements, sector winners/losers, market reaction). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing 'Historical' and 'past Indian Union Budgets', unlike the live-focused analyze_budget_live.

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 implies usage for retrieving past budget impact by year and lists available years, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives such as analyze_budget_live, nor does it state exclusions or alternative tools. Guidance is implied rather than stated.

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