Открыть бюджет

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive. The description adds that the result is a card with progress and notification thresholds, but it does not disclose error behavior, required permissions, or what happens if the budget identifier is not found. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 short noun phrase carries the key information with no filler and puts the resource first. It is easy to scan and 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?

For a simple read-only getter with fully documented parameters and strong annotations, the description explains the output shape at the right level: a card with progress and notification thresholds. It is slightly vague on what the thresholds mean and does not set expectations for missing budgets, but those are minor for this 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: both budget and business are documented with name-or-id semantics and defaulting for business. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 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?

The description names the resource (budget card) and the distinguishing content (progress and notification thresholds), which sets it apart from budgets_list's overview. It is clear, but it is a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb+resource statement like 'returns' or 'opens', so it stops short of full 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 intended usage is implied by the tool name and the sibling budgets_list: get a single detailed budget vs list budgets. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no conditions, and no mention of when to prefer budgets_save or budgets_delete.

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