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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden, and it does credibly enumerate the returned fields, including conditional ones ('if already stamped') and the frozen-for-the-day state. However it says nothing about freshness, determinism, permissions, or what happens when today's allocation isn't yet computed, leaving behavioral edges undisclosed.

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 that leads with the primary output (buy proportions) and appends secondary fields. It is dense but every clause maps to a distinct return value, so little is wasted.

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 zero-param read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the return payload well enough that an agent knows what it will receive. Minor gaps remain around freshness and the not-yet-stamped/not-yet-computed cases, but the core is complete.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document; baseline 4 applies. Nothing in the schema requires description-level compensation.

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 names a specific resource (today's RWA buy proportions) and enumerates its components (gold/S&P 500/treasuries, band, frozen flag, rationale, receipt). This distinguishes it from general siblings like get_rwa and from simulate_allocation. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with the closest sibling (simulate_allocation / get_decision_history), so it lands at 4.

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 implied by 'Today's' (this is the point-in-time read, not the historical get_decision_history or the hypothetical simulate_allocation), but the description never states when to use it vs those alternatives or any exclusions. No explicit routing guidance is provided.

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