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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: codes are single-use and expire in 15 minutes, results include IBKR contract ids where known, and RetireCrunch never places orders itself. The expiry/single-use constraint is exactly the kind of behavioral trait an agent cannot get from the schema.

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?

Four short sentences, purpose front-loaded, followed by the constraint and the next-step routing. No filler or repetition of the name.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description compensates by describing the return payload (trades with IBKR contract ids) plus the downstream workflow. Nothing an agent needs to call and correctly use the result is missing.

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% for the single 'code' parameter, so the schema already defines it. The description restates the same origin (copied from the Rebalancer via 'Send plan to my AI') without adding syntax or format detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (Fetch) and resource (rebalancing trades the user decided on in the RetireCrunch Rebalancer), and identifies the input as a plan code. This clearly separates it from the sibling rebalance_portfolio, which performs the rebalancing rather than fetching a saved plan.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to the follow-up action: create one create_order_instruction per trade, and notes the user reviews and submits each one in IBKR. It does not name an exclusion case (e.g., 'do not use rebalance_portfolio for this'), but the context for when this tool is needed is clear.

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