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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the return shape (exact trades, per-currency cash movements, overdraft flags, summary) and an important scope limit (no costs/taxes). It stops short of stating determinism, error behavior on infeasible targets, or how locked holdings are treated.

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 carries the inputs and outputs, followed by a short scoping clause; nothing is wasted. It is dense and slightly list-heavy but structurally sound.

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 nested, five-parameter planning tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers inputs, returned artifacts, and a key behavioral limit. Remaining gaps (target normalization, locked-holding effects, failure modes) are secondary but real.

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 the baseline is 3; the schema already documents fx_rates, class_targets, available_cash and every holding field. The description's mention of per-holding vs per-asset-class targets and FX/cash inputs maps to those parameters but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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 verb and resource ('Rebalance a multi-currency portfolio') and enumerates both required inputs and returned artifacts (BUY/SELL trades, per-currency cash movements, summary). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling get_rebalance_plan, which sounds like it may do the same thing.

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 by the input enumeration; there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus get_rebalance_plan or the other portfolio tools. The one scoping exclusion offered ('Planning math only — no transaction costs or taxes') narrows the domain but is a capability limit, not routing guidance.

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