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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent, explaining that it returns an UNSIGNED transaction {to,data,value,chainId} on Base and that nothing changes until the caller signs and broadcasts. It also discloses the non-custodial model ('Liquid never holds keys or funds'), which is meaningful context beyond the 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?

Front-loaded with the key cost note ('Free.') and the core action, then the mechanics. Dense but each clause carries information; the signing/custody sentence is longer than strictly necessary but earns its place for a transaction-producing tool.

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, so the description needn't explain return values, yet it still characterizes the unsigned transaction shape. Combined with the chain and custody notes, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only sibling-routing guidance is absent.

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 both parameters (vault, weightsBps) are already fully documented. The description adds only a concrete example array, which is mildly useful but largely restates the schema's sum-to-10000 and ordering constraints.

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 ('Sets your vault's target allocation across the 4 stocks in basis points') with the exact unit and expected sum. An agent can distinguish this from stocks_basket, stocks_rebalance, and stocks_buy without opening schemas.

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?

It gives the format and the default (equal weight) and implies when the tool is appropriate (rebalancing a vault's target weights), but it never states when to prefer it over close siblings like stocks_rebalance or stocks_basket. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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