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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it highlights the read-only nature ('free read', 'descriptive analytics only', 'nothing is executed'), mentions composition of multiple surfaces, and describes output details (each entry names backtest_strategy args and follow-up tool). This aligns with and enriches 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently conveys key points. However, it contains some redundancy (e.g., repeating read-only nature) and could be more concise. Overall, it is well-structured but slightly verbose.

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?

The description covers the tool's role, output nature, and workflow context well. However, with 5 parameters all lacking schema descriptions, the description does not fully explain input semantics. The presence of an output schema partly offsets return value documentation, but input parameter guidance is incomplete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. While it explains 'intent' with three levels (conservative, balanced, aggressive) matching the default, it does not describe other parameters (assets, caller_id, timeframe, wallet_address). The description uses 'assets' in context but lacks formal semantics. This is insufficient to guide an agent in parameter usage.

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 it produces a 'ranked allocation plan' combining multiple signals (intent, balances, regime, yields, ML) and positions it as an intelligence/analysis step. The verb 'propose' matches the tool name, and the description explicitly differentiates it from sibling tools by specifying the workflow sequence.

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 provides explicit workflow placement: 'call after get_market_briefing and before backtest_strategy / get_risk_assessment / strategy_*_create'. It also clarifies it is a 'free read' and 'never advice', setting expectations. This gives clear guidance on when to use the tool and its role in the broader process.

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