shared_budgets_query

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 covered. The description contributes one genuinely new behavioral fact — that invoice contacts are omitted from results — but says nothing about default result window size, rate limits, or how 'bounded' truncation manifests.

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. It is efficient but borders on under-specification given the tool's breadth.

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?

An output schema exists and the schema is richly annotated, so the description need not explain return values. However, for an 11-parameter, open-world query tool the one-liner leaves gaps around the id/sharedBudgetId shortcuts and the bounded-result semantics that only fragile schema inference can fill.

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% across all 11 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no per-parameter meaning; notably it does not explain the distinction between the 'id' legacy shortcut, 'sharedBudgetId', and the filters path, which is the one place narrative help would have real value.

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 ('Query shared-budget metadata') and adds a scope qualifier ('bounded', 'without invoice contacts') that tells the agent what the result set excludes. It does not name the nearest sibling (shared_budget_get) so differentiation must be inferred from the singular-vs-query pattern.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'bounded' hints this is a paginated listing rather than a single-record fetch, but there is no explicit statement about when to prefer shared_budget_get or shared_budget_update_preview, and no prerequisites such as the required profile/adAccountId pairing.

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