get_agent_budget

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it counts ALL LLM calls including BYOK, and defines what unlimited=true means. These details go beyond annotations and clarify the semantics of the returned data.

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?

Two sentences with zero wasted words. The main return values are front-loaded, and the technical detail about BYOK and unlimited is placed after the core message. Every sentence 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 getter with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately states what is returned (budget and balance) and defines key terms (unlimited). It doesn't detail the exact JSON response structure, but with no output schema provided, this level of detail is acceptable. The behavioral context about BYOK rounding it out.

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 coverage is 100% (agent_id is described as 'UUID do agente'). The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies because the schema fully documents the only parameter.

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 specific verb 'Retorna' (returns) and the resource: the budget (spending cap in USD) and balance of the current cycle for a single agent. It indicates a read operation and implies it's for one agent via 'de um agente', but does not explicitly contrast with list_agent_budgets, which likely handles multiple agents.

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 a single agent's budget but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus list_agent_budgets or other alternatives. It doesn't mention exclusions or scenarios. The context is clear but not directive, so a 3 is appropriate.

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