shared_budget_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is carried for free. The description only reinforces that this is a single-record read of current state; it says nothing about behavior when the ID is missing or about how fresh the read is.

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 with no filler. The resource and scoping intent come before any qualifying clause.

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 single-record read with full schema descriptions, safety annotations, and an output schema, this is largely sufficient. Only the not-found behavior and the id vs sharedBudgetId choice remain unaddressed.

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%, so the baseline of 3 applies. The phrase 'by ID' is notably ambiguous because the schema exposes both legacy `id` and `sharedBudgetId`; the description does nothing to disambiguate which one is intended.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: read one shared budget by ID. This cleanly separates it from shared_budgets_query (listing) and the create/update/delete preview siblings. It does not name a sibling explicitly, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

'For current-state verification' hints at the intended moment of use (confirming the live value of a budget) but gives no explicit when-not or named alternative such as shared_budgets_query for enumeration.

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