Бюджеты

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

Annotations already declare the call as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: budgets carry progress, EXPENSE is a cap while INCOME is a target, fact and plan are separate, and forecast equals fact plus future plan. This helps an agent interpret the returned data and does not contradict any annotation.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying distinct and necessary information: what is listed, how budget directions work, and the unit of all amounts. The core idea is front-loaded and there is no filler or repetition.

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 list with one optional parameter, the description plus annotations cover the essential interpretation: budgets belong to a business/deal, include progress, and amounts are in rubles. It could be more explicit about response shape and that it lists all budgets, but nothing critical is missing for tool selection.

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 only parameter, business, is fully documented in the input schema with 100% coverage, including the default-business behavior. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the schema-driven baseline of 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 explains what the budget data means (budgets with progress, EXPENSE vs INCOME semantics, rubles) and identifies the resource, but it never uses a verb like 'list', 'get', or 'returns'. It also does not explicitly differentiate budgets_list from budgets_get, budgets_save, or budgets_delete.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool instead of sibling budget tools. The name and readOnlyHint imply read-only listing, but the description does not state this or mention alternatives.

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